User talk:Anwar saadat

This talk page is an acid-test of Free Speech in Wikipedia. However, due to strong filibuster language, it may be unsuitable for virgins, yobs, punks, carpetbaggers, pensioners and narcissists between the ages of 15 and 45.

Your Update of Average Wages on Economy Pages

Anwar, You recently edited so many pages on the economy of countries, e.g. Economy of Russia, Economy of China, Economy of Russia etc. regarding "wage" . Your editing by adding some sentence such as "average wages for workers hover betweem $x-$y per day."

can you add citation for the source. Actually, I will appreciate if you kindly mention the source or reference for the statistics you posted. Is it from the ILO, from where exactly? Thanks so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.25.96 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market index future

Can you please do the needful and help out with references in the Stock market index future article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit applications

The notion that a "32-bit software application" needs "at least 2^31 bits of memory" is one that I have never seen before. The page on 32-bit applications says only that "A 32-bit application is software that runs in a 32-bit flat address space (a flat memory model)", i.e. that it's an application that requires a 32-bit (flat) address space. An application can require that without requiring the use of 31 or more bits of that address space. Guy Harris (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc ore mining

You created the Image:Zinc (mined)2.PNG and I created the Image:World Niobium Production 2006.svg. Do you have a suggestion if this is good or how to improve it?--Stone (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:2005gdpIndustrial.PNG

File:2005gdpIndustrial.PNG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:2005gdpIndustrial.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:2005gdpIndustrial.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2005gdpServices.PNG is now available as Commons:File:2005gdpServices.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello..

This is just a message to ask you kindly to refrain from adding box-office details to filmography tables. If they are added, it should be to the film's articles. Furthermore, I have noticed that your additions are unsourced. If these are not addressed to, they will be shortly removed. Thanks. Universal Hero (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add box-office stats to the rarticles of actors. Gross is always the critique of the films. For example, actors such as Prasanna, Sathyaraj and to an extent Vikram, Surya and Madhavan have built bases without the elusive blockbuster. Thanx, I will revert the info back on actors and GA-possible articles. Universal Hero (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm sorry about the article Asin Thottumkal, I was in a bit of a roll! Apologies. :P Universal Hero (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prin, I am adding detaails only for career peaks, not for all film. So do not remove them please. Anwar (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they are unsourced, and belong on the film's page. If you want you can mention them in text, just not on the film's page. To be honest, no actor is directly responsible for the film's success. One more, and I might have to take action. < That wasn't a warning, just a stop this nonsense. Universal Hero (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each film's article has box office details, but to understnad career growth, we have to put some number on the actor page as well. I did not ad box office details for all his 40 films.Anwar (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no you don't. Include reliable sources. Universal Hero (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why are you removing citations for Dasavatharam?Anwar (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, the article is practically complete. All needed stats and data are reliable, checked and looked over. All it needs now is to go through a Readover before submitting it for a GA. Wikiproject India cites that crores should be used. Universal Hero (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid tampering with GA Articles. As per those films, the cast section needs to be as it is and the money values have to be regionalized. However, I do thank you for adding to stubs. Universal Hero (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You too stop uploading Copyvio posters and copy-pasting from websites. Those articles are not worth GA anyway. Stop kidding yourself. You were already banned from editing Wikipedia. Be careful or I have to take action again. Anyway I have retained almost all the link-spam. Also, you are extending the article size with duplicate information in the plot and cast sections and incredible weasel in the reviews. Try to give detached reports. Do not make judgments about the film.Anwar (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force#Notable articles - please try and use these as templates to build articles. The cast section exists here as it does in FAs. Avoid what you are doing. Was that a threat? Universal Hero (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a threat. You are not going to learn. So I have decided to take action. I have reported you. I don't know how many times you will have tob e blocked before you stop uploading copy-vio images. Maybe Wikipedia has more patience than me. By the way, you have already started a revert war in a dozen articles.Anwar (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-vio images? where? here > [1]? or your infamous first edit? Universal Hero (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vinnai Thandi Varuvaaya image has been altered. Please try and make effective contributions. Many thanks. Universal Hero (talk)

Hello, a Rajnikanth fan wouldn't transform the Haasan article into what it is today, after its lowly past. Furthermore, please look at my magnitudinal effort on the Dasavathaaram, before you make such allegations.

Thank you for your one liner on the page og Kamal Haasan but I feel it makes no real point to the total subject. Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Universal Hero (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

Who are you and why are you reverting the good edits of several Tamil actor articles? If you have info, then simply add it to the existing info rather than trying to change things up yourself. Do not remove or change the make up of each article next time. --Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 11:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My edits were reverted blindly.Anwar (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so... you are not providing explanation to what you are adding, you are simply changing up the way the articles look, like what you did to Rajinikanth. Please stop that and keep the way the article looks unless you spot vandalism. --Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalising rajini article. Before Rajadhi Raja, his hair style was different and salary was lower than Kamal. During 1989-92, he was graded equally with Kamal. Try to understand film industry mechanism. Earlier, the article implied as if he was already a superstar in 1980. That is nonsense. He was acting in 8 films in 1980 and worried more about survival facing competition from Sivakumar and Vijayakumar. Anwar (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have blindly removed all the info about guest appearances in Ajith article. Please do not do that.Anwar (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a clear sense of Rajini's career which is why I have been keeping the article clean for quite a while, thank you. So what about his hairstyle being different? You wrote he was considered a star after 40 years of age...? Says who? Your claims are actually nonsense, no offense. And also you have added unnecessary info to the Ajith article (how much the film grossed in the filmography section) and you are also removing some info that was already there (about Ajith has been controversial). Please do not remove or change information on articles that has already been there because they have already undergone several checks and revamps before. If you have any concerns please discuss it using the discussion page of the respective articles. Thank you. --Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 11:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit the section you have issues with. Do not revert the whole article. Everyone older than 30 knows who was leading in the 1980s.Anwar (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said this before, I have issues with all your edits. Yes, I agree everyone older than 30 knows who was leading then... does that mean they get to write information without sources? I request you to not discriminate users by age. If you cause more troubles you will be taken action on. --Eelam StyleZ ^(talk) 11:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

Clerk note: Thank you for your report, which will be investigated. I would however ask that you understand that the purpose of an SPI case is to present the evidence on both sides, and then leave it to the clerks, admins and CheckUsers to investigate. A case is not intended to be the site of a back and forth conversation between the accused party and the accuser, nor is it expected that the evidence will be added paragraph by paragraph over several hours. Having added your evidence, in a single edit if possible. You should refrain from editing again unless a clerk asks you to add further information or clarification. Mayalld (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I have added most of the links.Anwar (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative gross

Regardless of what happened between Universal and you, which I'll check tomorrow to give my opinion, I'd like to tell you about the lifetime gross collections an actor's films have had in total, which you have been adding now on several articles.

It's been already discussed and decided that no cumulative gross should appear in articles of actors whose career is much active and their film appearances continue steadily, as the numbers grow consistently. Secondly, it's also quite non-notable as the matter of a success is the total gross a sole film makes, not all the films of one actor. An actor may have a string of flops, yet the cumulative of his films can still be huge, so it means nothing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy guidance

Sorry, I don't know much about links between Prin and Universal Hero or anyone else. I honestly don't remember why I determined him to be a sockpuppet in the first place -- looking back, I'm thinking my involvement in the case may have only been to place a block on the account long after Prin had abandoned it, because no one else had done so. I don't know anything that would help establish a link between Prin and any other accounts. Ral315 (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]