User talk:Ankitbhatt/Archive 2

I have added information templates to the images pages- use the description section to describe what the image shows, the date section to give the date the shot was taken, in the source field explain you took it and mention where- also, are these scans of your original photos? May be worth mentioning that, if they are- and put your username or your real name in the "author" field. Also, can I just confirm you took the original photo? As in, pushed the button on the camera? If so, feel free to fill in the tables and remove my deletion notice. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not listed anywhere. I have, however, tagged them to be moved to Commons, so that hopefully they will be more widely used. Seems a shame to have them and not use them! Thanks for resolving this issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, filmographies are not really nevessary in case of playback singers. But let me first understand why you reverted all my copyedits and everyone else to your own version??

If you insist to have a filmography of Ghoshal then be my guest, add it, though preferably in a separate page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with picking images. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park made Featured Article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am an active WikiProject India member to which this article is associated, I can not GA review it. You can contact me after you get the first GA comments in the review.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wait for a GA reviewer. Please be patient. I am copy-editing the article and leave unofficial comments in accordance with WP:GA? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not overlink INR and US$ in My Name Is Khan. If you link INR, like this it does not go to Indian rupee. --JovianEye (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm assuming you want to know when signups will start? I'd probably think it safe to assume it would be the beginning of November, and these would be open until January when it would start for the new year. Cheers,  urban f o x  09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you can have some extra time to work on it. If it makes the article better that's what counts. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for starting creating pages. I think we should find a consistent format for all the ceremonies. A few points:

• I think mentioning the sponsors (ie idea) is not necessary. They are title sponsors but only commercially. I mean for TV. We should follow the simple format of the Oscars.
• I do not know the difference between a published nominee and a simple nominee. From what I know, the ceremonies themselves do have nominations for some of the categories which are not mentioned when nominations are announced.
• I think the infobox is a cool idea but can cause a lot of trubles, because, unlike the Oscars, much of the info for past years is missing. You will hardly find even a date, let alone location for past ceremonies. So I guess a simple board like that of the Golden Globes would be better. What do you think?
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Again idea can be mentioned in the article particularly in the section mentioning the telecast, but not in the article's name. Every article should follow a simple format: Xth Filmfare Awards. And BTW, every show shown on TV has a sponsor. What we are doing hre is covering the awards. The nominees: I mean that several nominations are not published but exist. Best Story, Screenplay etc., have nominations. As for the infobox, it could cause problems with previous shows in the future because there are almost no details to mention. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say we have to remove the infobox. In some cases we will just not be able to use it as some parameters are required. What will you change as soon as you can? Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's also mentioned in the lead, so great. I'll tell you if I find an image. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table you are now working on will just take your energy and it does not really do anything. This is I think the best way to go. Also, trivia like Bipasha Basu being nominated twice is not really useful, expecially considering that actors very often get nominations. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying it for your sake, as your energy is wasted, not mine. On the contrary, I appreciate these efforts. Other than that, The trivia which should be mostly mentioned is "first times", records and interesting facts. Anyway, it's up to you so good luck. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But as you can see on the original table, some fields are blank because there isn't anything noteworthy. Best, Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we have a little problem. The nominees which are announced preshow are not the actual entire list of nominees. I'm now adding all the nominees to the 55th awards. It will clearly change the list. I think it's better if we first concentrate on the awards and nominees list and then on the nomination records rather than count them anew later. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the actual ceremony. Not all the categories have prior nominations. But from I saw, Screenplay, Story, Dialogue - all have nominations. You can see my edit on the 55th awards. Let's work MAN!! :))) Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ceremony itself can be used as a reference. There's a special template for video sources. No site is needed for them if it cannot be found online (though we do have it on video). Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I also saw the ceremony and there are no nominations for critics awards. A critics award does not have prior nominations, it's an instant determination taken by the jury. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, I was planning to do it like that but apparently User:Shshshsh felt that it wasn't a good idea. I just feel that having two different charts for BOI & IBOS makes the article ridiculously long but apparently it is good to have both of them as we have no official source for box office figures in India. I was also planning to do something like this, in which we would list all the films according to BOI and have a separate column to list figures from IBOS, but I am still not sure about it yet. If you can come up with a way that is fair and consistent, let me know and we'll see what we can do about it. BTW, great job on the 54th Filmfare Awards and 55th Filmfare Awards pages. I have always wanted to do this. It's great to see things finally taking shape. :) Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy... you and User:Surper1988west have done an awesome job by adding the "highest-grossing films of each year" on the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films article. I have always wanted to do that but didn't have the time to do so. Keep up the good work! :) However, I just have one problem. Do you really think that having a chart for the "highest-grossing film of each month" is necessary? We already have a lot of charts and adding more would just lengthen the article even more. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ankitbhatt. You have new messages at Talk:Delhi Metro.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for the edits on the Ra.One page. I was tired of adding reviews to it's nice to have someone else do it for a change! Keep it up. Omar Qureshi's review will be up soon and so will Rajeev Masands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that I closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW. You just are not ready. However, when you think you are ready, you can always try again later. Sorry about this RfA. Good luck on the next one though!--The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your changes to the article, but when you are re-writing something, please provide references also.--Managerarc^(talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, a while back I had told you about only having "one" table that ranked the highest-grossing Bollywood films in India according to BOI and having a separate section to indicate how much the film had grossed according to IBOS. Anyways, I am planning on doing this on the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films article. What do you say? Does it sound like a good idea? Here is an example of what I am planning to do:

-- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest; there's very little about this feature that I can explain that Help:Pending changes doesn't. In all practicalities, as the trial is limited to 2,000 articles, there's a good chance you won't even encounter this feature during the trial unless you go looking for it. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ankitbhatt! I noticed that you added yourself as a candidate on the coordinator election page. The election process says, "If the candidate pool does not exceed the number of open positions (5) by at least 5 nominations by the end of the nominations period, then nominations will be allowed through to the end of the voting period." By the start of the voting period, we had six candidates listed. You won't be able to run for this particular term. Will you be able to remove yourself from the list? Not being a coordinator does not preclude you from discussions, anyway! You can still weigh in at discussions at WT:FILM and WT:FILMC. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]