★

The article Rashmika Mandanna you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rashmika Mandanna for comments about the article, and Talk:Rashmika Mandanna/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Magentic Manifestations -- Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is Mandanna a patronymic if the subject's father is Madan Mandanna? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie to you, I just accepted the fact and moved on as other articles refer to her as "Rashmika" but if you find that this is incorrect then you are welcome to present evidence as to why. Thanks! 19Arham (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof that Mandanna is not a patronymic but a surname. Hope the next GOCE editor will fix this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per this, this and this it is patronymic so I’d suggest to ping other editors on her talk page. 19Arham (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rashmika Mandanna, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rashmika Mandanna was reluctant to accept her first role in Hindi cinema as she disagreed with the character's views on spirituality? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rashmika Mandanna. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rashmika Mandanna), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arham. Can you have a look at the talk page of Shraddha Kapoor? I have added a topic regarding her career. Please discuss. Greatly influenced (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! 19Arham (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May i kindly try understanding on what ethical grounds you undid ?

curprev 21:06, 17 December 2024 19Arham talk contribs 100,858 bytes −183 Undid revision 1263575608 by Bolly ka Badshah (talk) Tag: Undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolly ka Badshah (talk • contribs)

"By merging the parts in the lead about Animal and the Pushpa franchise you are detracting from their individual accomplishments and what they brought separately to Mandanna’s career as (for example) Pushpa: The Rise brought her pan-Indian success whereas Animal brought her commercial recognition. You also incorrectly formatted the movies as they were not in italics. Please do not revert these changes again. Thanks. User:19Arham (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

If this is really your opinion then insteady of UNDOING my changes you should have improved upon my changes. your undoing of changes raises serious doubts about your ethics, but i seriously respect that. @ User:19Arham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolly ka Badshah (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to improve upon… it was just incorrect my friend 19Arham (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding Wamiqa Gabbi has been removed multiple times despite being supported by reliable sources, such as [1]. This violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Could we discuss this further to reach a consensus? TheHappiestEditor (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this source falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and is therefore not a reliable or usable reference for the article.

Secondly, applying a balanced and informed judgment, it is evident that Gabbi has appeared in 16 Hindi films and 11 Punjabi films, compared to only 2 Malayalam films, 1 Tamil film, and 1 Telugu film. Consequently, Hindi and Punjabi cinema are the most notable aspects of her career.

If you remain unconvinced, I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Wamiqa Gabbi to seek input from other editors. If you revert the edit one more time, you will be violating WP:3RR. 19Arham (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my edit summary at Khushi Kapoor's page. That was totally unwarranted. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. 19Arham (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but please do wait for a majority of reviews to be published before adding them to an actor's bio. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, most reviews (especially of the few good critics we have left in India) are published by noon of a release day, and can help us come to a better understanding of how a performance has been received. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you for the guidance. 19Arham (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disha Patani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baaghi (franchise).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tabu (actress) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tabu (actress) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Tabu (actress) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is Indian Musical artist and Actor 2409:40D5:52:1700:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belbury. I noticed that you recently removed content from Triptii Dimri without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. It was unclear why you'd removed the source for her date of birth, so I've restored it. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ibrahim Ali Khan (actor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Ali Khan (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mpen320 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello brother, I am new here. If there are any grammatical mistakes, please correct them, as I also want to gain experience. I want to create a page for a new company can you guide me? Samyfit556b (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Try Articles for creation insert {{ subst:submit (with end brackets) at top of Draft. Plus undeclared COI (if you are related to the company), is not allowed. DareshMohan (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatt was listed in first place in The Times of India's "50 Most Desirable Women" list of 2018, and she was named the "Sexiest Asian Woman" by the UK magazine Eastern Eye in 2019.^[1][2] In 2020, Eastern Eye also featured her in their dynamic dozen for the decade list.^[3]

Per WP:AWARDS, while trivial or non-notable beauty contests should be avoided, this does not apply here. Both The Times of India’s “Most Desirable Women” list and Eastern Eye’s “Sexiest Asian Woman” title are widely reported in reliable secondary sources (TOI, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, BBC, etc.) and are regularly included in the “Public image” sections of Bollywood and Hollywood actors’ pages (e.g. Priyanka Chopra, Deepika Padukone, Katrina Kaif, Scarlett Johansson).

These rankings are not just about “attractiveness” but reflect public image, popularity, and cultural influence, which are encyclopaedically relevant. Excluding them would create inconsistency (WP:CONSISTENCY) with the treatment of similar material across comparable biographies.

Therefore, I propose that this reliably sourced content be added back under the Media image section of Alia Bhatt’s article. Kirti15 (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belbury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aneet Padda, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You must cite a reliable source when adding a date of birth to a biography article. See WP:BLPDOB for more about this. Belbury (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

kindly help save Kriti Sanon filmography from disruptive editing and persistent redirection Bonadart (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tbh I don't understand why they keep rming it. Nothing in Bhatt's career barring Gangubai has been more notable than Sanon's for it to warrant her getting her own page. 19Arham (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons are stated at the AfD. Also, be mindful of WP:CANVASSING. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi you are part of bollywood task force right, can you see this page, the user CNMall41 has added comment that this page cant be published untlll film is released, is that valid or justified? just asking please consult with other members of task force if posssible. Bonadart (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadart: Second warning on WP:CANVASSING. Next time it will need to go to WP:ANI as it is becoming disruptive. As far as the draft, it most certainly is justified as you have at least one previous time attempted to circumvent the results of an AfD discussion. This would be another one. It was deleted less than a month ago so it is again...bludgeoning. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi i dont undertand why are you roaming here, this is somewhat interference in interaction between two users. since when is asking for clarification has became a canvassing issue. as for page which you talk about, yes i wanted to create the page but honestly didnt know someone already had tried it. you need to keep cool. Bonadart (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, this talk page is on my watchlist. You seem to be in a state of WP:IDHT. Let me know if you would rater discuss this at WP:ANI or if you understand that WP:CANVASSING is not acceptable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadart, this is pretty darn close to WP:CANVASSING - if you want to ask ICTF members, then ask at ICTF. I'm glad you're using a talk page, even if it's a user talk page versus the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

Thanks so much for your update of the Shefali Shah article. I have been too busy to do it myself and was happy to see that someone had started something on it. Still, I disagree with your verdict on the critical reception - most of the reviews I see are very positive - "mostly positive" would thus be quite representative of the majority view. No one's expecting the same overwhelming acclaim recieved by the first season. There are always some less enthusiastic reviews for second and third seasons (actually the second season was also not as well received as the first and it's natural). Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd disagree because even the reviews you had cited as "mostly positive" were providing an objectively mixed take and, relative to the other seasons, underwhleming. Therefore, both objectively and relatively, reception was more ambivalent as I had corrected. 19Arham (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more reviews - the more I extend my research, the clearer it becomes that the reception is actually very positive. The only reason I think maintaining "mostly positive" is still okay is because of the comparison to the first season. The season has received very good feedback across the board. Relative to the tremendous reception of the first season, "mostly positive" is a good and measured summary. In and of itself there's no ambivalence. A few mixed reactions here and there do not make the overall reception ambivalent, IMHO. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the Kriti Sanon article a direct quote should not be paraphrased or altered at all. If you disagree please ask at The Teahouse, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]