Talk:PK (film): Difference between revisions

Dont delete,ample RS have been provided

P.K.(2014 film) been provided ample reliable sources like Hindustan Times,India Today,TOI etc.Even Rajkumar Hirani has also said he is making this film and shooting will begin mid-2013.There is no uniformity and consistency on Bollywood upcomg film. Like Happy New Year (2013 film) has no sources or references,but no one cares about that. Like that so many films article are on wikipedia. Abhinavname (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Add the other poster

I know that the first revealed poster was controversial, but it's still valid promotional material, so I think it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.191.123 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Location

Local Belgian media reports that the movie has been recorded in the city of Bruges (Belgium) for the first 15 minutes. Source in Dutch: http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/922/Nieuws/article/detail/2141251/2014/12/04/Kan-Brugge-toeristen-lokken-met-Bollywoodfilm.dhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.244.22 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My material was not copyrighted!

I wrote the whole plot summary for PK taking out time, revising. This whole took me an hour and then they say it is copyrighted and I maybe banned from editing. My 1 hour hard work is a waste? And they claim it to be someone else' work. Please add it, I have written it myself. I don't know how to reply to that edit ban message. Please help! I wrote it fully myself. They should have checked it first. My whole 1 hour hard work for Wikipedia in waste. I could have done a better work rather but I chose to contribute to wikipedia for 1 long hour and now they say it was copyrighted? Please help!

Regards.

Kashisharora11 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2014

In the plot summary, please change "After hearing this, Sarfaraz gives PK his device back." to "After hearing this, Tapasvi gives PK his device back." because Tapasvi is the one who challenges PK, not Sarfaraz. Arramees (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [1]. I haven't seen the film, but will AGF and make the change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

There are some mistakes in the article Pk(2014) and it only has a very brief and incomplete description . So please allow me to edit it.

Sanjay921 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the place to request changes in protection level. You can either file a request a WP:RFPP or ask Eustress, the protecting administrator. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it correct to say the PK character was inspired from Abraham Kovoor?

The article includes a statement: // Aamir Khan’s character as PK is inspired from a real life character Abraham Kovoor//

That claim is based on just one source article which had mooted that the movie character PK was inspired by the renowned rationalist and atheist Abraham Kovoor. There is no claim or evidence shown in that source article that the writer behind the movie story or the movie maker Rajkumar Hirani having said that the inspiration was from Abraham Kovoor.

I wish to point out that this conclusion in that source article is incorrect and so not valid.

Abraham Kovoor was not only a rationalist but also an atheist throughout his adult life openly known to public. Even after his death his body was donated to the Colombo Medical College as per his wishes and there were no religious funeral ceremonies held by the family.

The PK character in the movie on the other hand, after learning about the gods, the beliefs and the ways of religions in earth starts appealing to each gods for recovering his "remote control" because he took the words of some that only gods can help him. Along the way he gets frustrated, becomes very critical of the gods for not helping him and starts seriously questioning their genuineness. But eventually (in a climatic confrontation with the crooked god-man on live TV) he tearfully and elegantly confesses his belief or faith that the creator of all the universe as the real almighty and that it is only human agents who have created false gods, religions and divisions among people.

The only commonality with Kovoor's life I see is that both had battled in their own ways to expose false god-men. But surely PK does not subscribe to atheism at all and so its an invalid judgement that the character was inspired from Kovoor. (K. Sethu) கா. சேது (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the fact that you disagree with a statement made by the source doesn't mean that your opinion trumps the source. If you'd like to call into question the reliability of the source, that's fine, and you can do that at WP:RSN, but there appear to be a number of sources that make similar claims, although I haven't looked too closely into the facts to figure out who originated the statement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why BOI and domestic box office totals only?

Hi Arjann, with regard to this edit, I'm curious why we are only using Box Office India totals, which so far seem to be limited to domestic gross. Though I understand there are significant problems with overzealous Bollywood box office figures that we have to watch out for, 1) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film, which prefers worldwide gross in Template:Infobox film, 2) Other sources, like Deadline, are reporting bigger numbers. Where can I read the consensus discussion that resulted in the decision to stick only with BOI? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That was why his edit was reverted. -Sahir 03:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we are not only using BOI, but it is one of the sources that is considered better than most.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: : Always stick to official sources rather than websites which either manipulate figures or borrow the figures from the official source. Koimoi gives accurate figures as far as my encounter tallying the numbers on both sides is concerned. As per current trends, the film is still in the market and its collections are varying. Box Office India will give you the most precise worldwide gross but one needs to hold on. At this moment it will be not satisfactory to put the worldwide gross because several websites report incorrect figures. One of the reliable source I saw says 324 cr other says 401 cr. Which one to believe? Read this discussion on Box Office India. Arjann (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:V / WP:NPOV - when multiple reliable sources report different things, we report that the reliable sources are reporting different things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue of who is better(BOI or Koimoi). But there are no problems for this film, since Rentrak has officially worked for this film. PK's official figures by Rentrak is closer to Koimoi figures. Hence i trust Koimoi only for this film. Hoping for Rentrak to speed up its operations & computerize almost all theatres to get accurate figures. Jackthomas321 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason why computerizing every theatre should be done is, because we all know every big movie except Aamir movie have inflated BO figures. Especially Srk movies. Now srk will manipulate the figures like never before to break this film's record. He manipulated 40 crore for Chennai Express & much more for HNY. Till everything becomes computerized, srk will continue playing this puppet game. I feel pity for those who buy those BO figures. Because they will go to cinemas thinking 'Oh, its earning a lot. It may be good movie. Lets go.' That's exactly what happened for 'Happy new year' film. They were all betrayed. Jackthomas321 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Again when there are multiple reliable sources reporting different aspects, we report that the reliable sources are giving different views, we dont pick the one that we most agree with and ignore the others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

Section 6) Criticism I don't think it should be called that (Criticism), either break it into 2 sections one critical reception and the second criticism for each of the 2 paragraphs Or rename section to Reception

Its called Criticism but reviews in the first paragraph are giving mostly positive feedback, only the second paragraph is actually Criticism of the film. Stammewar (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Done by this edit Cannolis (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed the plot summary

I'm sorry I had to change the plot summary to do justice to the story. Anyway, your hard work is appreciated.
Please include the original writer of the film's story, not only the screen writers.
Thanks and regards,
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No Controversy section?

There are massive protests, burning of posters occurred against this film. The controversy is in hike making headlines across national newspapers still there is no separate section or detailed information about this issue on the article? Why? --27.34.84.55 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

27.34.84.55 Probably because people such as yourself aren't adding one. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who are regular people like you. If you think the section is worth adding, add it. Please be sure to provide reliable sources and present the content in a neutral point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Love Jihad controversy

I don't know why I am not able to edit this page . There is no controversy section for love jihad . It's necessary http://www.deccanherald.com/content/449522/pk-supports-love-jihad-hindu.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Saffron-outfits-disrupt-PK-shows-again/articleshow/45697488.cms

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-pk-controversy-aamir-khan-film-sparks-outrage-in-several-indian-cities-2047859

http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/pk-controversies-added-media-coverage-brings-more-audience-feels-subhash-ghai/article1-1303358.aspx

http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/why-boyycottpk-makes-no-sense-at-all/article1-1299098.aspx

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/CM-waived-tax-on-PK-to-woo-Muslim-voters-Bajrang-Dal/articleshow/45719679.cms

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/02/bollywood-film-pk-hindu-nationalist-protests-india-aamir-khan

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-on-pk-movie-controversy/article6745645.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frost The World (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not going to put it in as a "controversy" section". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the sources are not reliable ? I am not asking to use the exact heading or words . But it's related to the article and something can be added to the article . So many references can't be ignored . If I want I can put more references from news websites. Frost The World (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Support from Government, Chief ministers, film & famous personalities

I have added "Support" for the film from the nation including "Government, politicians, film & other famous personalities." here and later toned down to a few lines here without even adding a separate SUPPORT section which i did in the first edit. But User:Krimuk90 keeps on deleting it stating that "when we don't have quotes from the fundamentalists why have quotes from the supporters." The "Support" addition is must, since The WIKI article clearly mentions various views & as well as the cases filed against the film. The people who filed the cases are worthless people(vested interests). Everyone including media channels know that. Yet, the user is trying to highlight the opinions of those petty people. So, the user cares about those people low-life vested interests, and ignores very important people of the nation like public, Government, various politicians, Big Film personalities & even some religious gurus. The article clearly includes the views of vested interests "All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front to ban its release saying it promoted nudity and vulgarity" and also "Activists of the The Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal protested against certain scenes in the film, which they considered to be hurtful to the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed against the film for the same." Only to counter this, the government, Chief ministers, film & famous personalities came out in support for the film. They even made the film-tax free. But User:Krimuk90 keeps deleting the SUPPORT addition which proves that he's against the film. My point is.. since views of unimportant people are added in the article, then the views of most important people who are supporting it must be added too. There are many hindu BJP groups, some organistions who are supporting the film. But i haven't added those. I have added only the views of most important people(Chief ministers,..). If I was wiki moderator, i wouldn't even add controversies since they are just created by vested interests which everyone know. Chief ministers, some spiritual gurus, film personalities themselves said that these controversies are rubbish. They are vested interests. Since the film exposes the fraud people, they are trying to attack the film". Check the sources. User:Jackthomas321 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jackthomas321: I would be very careful throwing around accusations if I were you, as you should be discussing content, not editors. There are any number of reasons why someone might reasonably remove content without them being part of a conspiracy. Based on the first quote you provided, "when we don't have quotes from the fundamentalists why have quotes from the supporters", that sounds like a basic neutral point of view argument. That is, "if we're not going to present a balanced perspective, why include quotes from one side of the fence?" Our job is to present a neutral perspective on any subject, not only one perspective. If you disagree with the representation of balance in the article, that's fine, you can calmly and rationally bring it up on the talk page, but posting a SHOUTING SUBJECT HEADER accusing other editors of being paid to promote extremist ideologies, is not constructive. Looking at the contribution in this edit (your example) I think it is overly promotional. We have a large sub-section Support without any attempt to provided balanced content in the same general area. If this content is to exist, it seems intuitive to balance it with the negative, e.g. "The film received criticism from XYZ groups for being disrespectful to the Hindu faith, etc, etc, yet some lawmakers praised the film for exposing rampant problems with fraud in religion, and gave the film tax exempt status to encourage greater viewership, blah blah blah." Group A says this, Group B says this. Neutral. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the section in question, but there is still more to be done. We have two sentences on the people complaining about the film, then the rest of the paragraph is chock full of all the people who love it. There are presently about five different, lengthy quotes from these people. That is not a proper balance, which only emphasizes that Krimuk90's concern was appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Why should there be a balance, when there is no balance on the issue? Few groups are trying to attack because their frauds are exposed in the film. Whereas the rest of the nation is supporting the film. The ratio is like 1:10,000. Apart from the sources i gave, one has to just see the record collections it gained to further stamp that everyone is praising it. Are you telling me that 1 person on the wrong side is equal to the 10,000 people on the right side. There is no balance at all. The statements given by the governments, chief-ministers, hindu religious gurus, & whole lot others proves that this controversy is rubbish. If one does a simple search on twitter, facebook, youtube, one can see that everybody loves the film. Moreover nobody(including me) is trying to promote the film by adding support section. If that was the case, many would have tried to add "support" section long ago when the controversy erupted. The film had already done all the box-office business it could do. It has already attained no.1 status. There is nothing more it can do. I am just trying to put the facts on this page. Just like the film tried to help people of india at large, i am doing my part in showing the truth to the people whoever visits this Wiki page. I am tired of protecting this page from vested interests. Hoping that, wiki moderators will step in to do their part. Jackthomas321 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you are not from India, you have no idea of how many indians are being cheated by the frauds. Almost every indian is cheated by these blind-faiths and numerous crimes take place due to it. Almost all GENOCIDES start on religious matters. Films like "1947 Earth" and "Bombay" show that. But there is also mass-murder & many human crimes(like rape,slavery...) in villages based on caste and religion which do not appear in media. People don't realize how big a problem it is. Since the film did a great job in trying to help indians, i felt it is my duty to protect the film in whatever way i can. Its high time for more films to come out on social-issues. If PK is not protected, then nobody will ever try to make a good-film fearing backlash. If we don't protect the right thing, wrong will rule and nobody can stop the crimes on humans. There are directly visible genocides in the middle-east based on the religious matters. One should never promote bad stuff on the same level of the right stuff. It becomes the root cause of all crimes. Jackthomas321 18:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jackthomas321:, There should be a balance, because barring a few exceptions, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. It is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Not sure how to make that clearer. And though I understand your passionate argument, Wikipedia isn't the place to "protect" films, and providing a balance of viewpoints isn't going to damage the movie. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and content should be presented in an encyclopedic fashion. If the film was intended to be a commentary against fraud in religion and superstition, or if there are recurring themes related to that subject, that certainly has a place in the article, if it can be properly sourced to scholars, fellow filmmakers, and so on (i.e. no personal interpretation, soapboxing, or original research, etc.) This is all covered in WP:FILMPLOT. Once we start getting into accolades and criticism, all of which represents opinions, we need to provide sufficient balance, and listing excessive, long quotes, isn't particularly helpful to achieving balance. For instance, the American film Citizen Kane is largely considered one of the best movies in American film history. It holds a 100% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Yet in the Contemporary responses section, editors have presented a balance of opinion including praise, middle-of-the-road reviews, and negative reception. I don't think there is anything wrong with listing a few government officials who are in praise of the film, but I think we should pick shorter quotations overall, and use fewer of them, especially if multiple people are basically saying the same thing. Something along the lines of this makes more sense to me:

"Pro-Hindu groups A & B protested the film, arguing that it depicts Hindus negatively. Group B stated, '(quote goes here)'.^[1] However some government officials including C, D, E and F praised the film for raising social awareness of issues related to fraud in religion, and harmful superstitious practices like (example goes here), which have caused numerous instances of social unrest in India between 2012 and 2014, including (examples goes here).^[2][3][4] Official F said, '(quote goes here)',^[5] a sentiment echoed by Official E, who remarked '(quote goes here)'.^[6]" These officials have granted PK tax-exempt status in order to encourage more of their constituents to see the film.^[7]

And so forth. Also, for the record, there are no "moderators" per se. We have administrators who tend to matters like blocking vandals, protecting articles from IP users and non-autoconfirmed users, etc., but it is not their job to monitor every edit that gets made to an article. That's why we have regular editors and discussion pages. So far there is no reason for administrators to be involved in this article unless they happen to be interested in the subject and wish to contribute. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Political conspiracy is something I never thought I would be accused of, but well, I guess that's something off my bucket-list! Anyway, thanks Cyphoidbomb, and yes, your version definitely makes more sense. I am not going to revert the user's additions anymore, so I would request some other kind editor to make the changes. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

RS?

Can we consider this source as reliable? Can we add info from this source? - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

NO. That interview is fake. It didn't happen. Jackthomas321 9 January 2015 19:45 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate the interview is "fake" but it is not a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If Aamir Khan gave interview, then trust me, it would appear atleast in thousand websites(all over the media)(especially after the controversy). After searching google, i noticed that it is only there in that website. So, its fake. Jackthomas321

This looks like an argument from silence logical fallacy. The fact that something did not happen, i.e. the appearance of the interview in many other publications, doesn't prove that the interview didn't happen. Although TRPoD's general note that the source is unreliable carries more weight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Attempts of Deleting Records

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I will try my best to be as polite as possible. Why are you deleting records again and again. You called it "Meaningless Fancruft". Well, you insulted Niloferqureshi (by calling his additions as fancruft). He took the time to add those records again after u deleted. Let me tell you that 'You & your attempts of deletions are meaningless." Who are you to decide "Second week" and "third week" records are less important than first week records. There are 100s of articles written on 2nd & 3rd week records in India. Google this.. PK second week. Box Office India & others daily update BO & write articles on whether its beating 2nd & 3rd week records. They are MUCH MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than 1st week records for Indian films. Only the 2nd week & 3rd week collections describe whether the film is good/bad liked/disliked. All big films break 1st week records movie after movie just based on star power irrespective of the film being good or bad. Only a quality film makes good 2nd & 3rd week collections. It took 6 years to break 3rd week records of 3 idiots. That shows the quality of 3 idiots. Every new movie has record 1st week collections. Only 2nd & 3rd week records describe whether people liked the film or not. They may not be important to u. But they are important to Indians. Let me break it to u, people who visit this page are 99.9% Indians. People who have interest in knowing 1st week records are also interested in 2nd & 3rd week records. People who have no interest in 2nd & 3rd week have no interest in 1st week or any other record for that matter. They show the film's worth. Note: The same records are on Dhoom 3 Records Wiki page for over a year now. Jackthomas321 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections. What will be of historic note is presumably the first week's take, and the worldwide gross. There's no clear reason to list every week's performance simply because it gets reported. If this is so important to Indians, they can read about this information at the relevant news website. Encyclopedias summarize the most important aspects of a subject, we don't memorialize all aspects of the subject. That's what books are for. And, this is a global encyclopedia, not the Indian Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:I don't buy a thing you said. Because the same records are on wikipedia Dhoom 3 Records for over a year now. And the table over there is twice as large. Nobody is a fool here. Dhoom 3 Records are edited by everyone very often (almost twice a week). And Yet nobody has deleted the records for over a year. But people are hell bent on trying to delete records of this film every day. Jackthomas321 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The fact that a problem exists elsewhere doesn't legitimize the inclusion of excessive statistics in this article. I bet there are lots of articles that use absurd "Blockbuster Status" language, but that doesn't mean it has any academic value. And I made a similar argument to what I posted above in January 2014 at Talk:Drishyam because editors kept adding semi-daily content that is historically meaningless. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Nobody cares about week by week updates except for fanboiz. Simply having a source does not mean that content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

First & foremost, you guys need to understand that i don't buy a thing. Wikipedia Avatar Records Page. It has all kinds of records on that page. @TheRedPenOfDoom:, Nobody cares about weekend records right? It shows 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th weekends records & all other crappy records includung (January weekend, Fastest to reach $600 million, Main contributor to the biggest aggregated weekend of all time, Largest gross on New Year day, Highest-grossing CGI star movie, Highest-grossing paraplegic film, Highest-grossing environmentalist movie,Reached $1 billion sales outside US and Canada in 28 day, First movie in history to reach $2 billion worldwide,.. & many many many more". That page has so many records mentioned that it puts you two into shame for trying to delete records on this page. Jackthomas321 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of crappy fancruft articles that need to be cleaned up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:Delete those first before you come here to delete. There is a dedicated page for Avatar Records for 5 years now on wikipedia. So many WIKIs regular editors, moderators & administrators have allowed Avatar Records & records on several other movie pages. But you are trying to delete here again & again. Its a fact that Corruption exists everywhere. You people are paid to do such illegal acts. Never ever give me that 'Wikipedia is encyclopedia or notes on historic importance' crap. Its just like every other website with corrupted regular editors. Jackthomas321 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack, if you accuse someone of being "paid to do" "illegal acts" again without some tangible evidence, I will take you to WP:ANI. Stop wagging your angry little finger at everybody. And deleting content is not "illegal". I was actually inclined to seriously consider your point with regard to Avatar--not that "List of records broken" article (because that is an apples-to-oranges comparison), rather the box office content that appears in the main article, but you make it extraordinarily difficult to do so when you keep yelling at people. If it is your uncontrollable nature to yell and accuse people of corruption, then it the uncontrollable nature of other editors to ignore you and dismiss your complaints. If you expect other editors to be open-minded and consider your perspective, then don't yell at them. This is stuff we learn in Kindergarten. Don't they have after-school specials in India? Your argument "delete those first before you come here to delete" is not realistic. This is an unfolding article, where Avatar has been established for a number of years. As I said in my first response, "If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections." If, however, something noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, then it's probably reasonable to consider including it. There are always a few things on my mind when dealing with Bollywood articles: 1) We are not here to promote the film or make it look attractive. 2) Since you like to talk about corruption, as you must know, there is rampant corruption with box office figures. This is a messy obstacle if we're going to compare PK to films that are mired in this box office corruption. Somehow we will have to work around this problem. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I am not here for a conversation with any wiki editor. What i am doing on this Talk Page is, "I am directly accusing the person who is deleting the records, because he has done the wrong thing (twice)." What PK achieved in a country is what Avatar achieved in the world because english is global language. success ratio of both films is same. Forget Avatar. My point is, some of Wikis main editors are corrupted/biased/have hidden agendas. Thats my accusation. PROOF: Forget Avatar. I'll prove it based on Indian films. Like so many MAIN/HEAD EDITORS like you& others are checking this page on a daily basis, they checked Dhoom 3 page same way 1 year ago, but they allowed all records over there. Dhoom3 page is still being checked by main editors once a week. For 1 whole year, all MAIN EDITORS had no problem with records of that page. But they have problem in showing the same records of PK. Mind u, Dhoom3 Records table is twice as large. Coming to your comment. Regarding your Corruption in BO figurescomment, u don't need to tell a smarter person than u about it. I mentioned on this page itself yesterday. Take a look. Aamir Khan is the only popular actor in India who has been pushing the industry for accuracy on BO figures. His films are as clean & pure as color white. I don't care about other actors or their films. Regarding your If you accuse someone ... without evidence, I will take you to WP:ANI comment, Do it right now coz I am still accusing TheRedPenOfDoom of wrong-doing. Regarding This is stuff we learn in Kindergarten, may be u learned to be a polite coward when something wrong is happening. I react like a Man to wrong people. When something is wrong, a Real Man gets angry whereas a coward behaves polite. Regarding wagging your angry little finger, It might appear like little finger for u based on my comments on internet, but it actually would be a hard punch on his face if the wrong person is in front of me & making such silly arguments. I know ur response will be "I am telling admin to block user Jack". I don't give a shit. I've been blocked before. I will never stop punching wrong people. Being blocked/unblocked makes no difference in my mind, because I am happy & at peace knowing that 'i am on the right side.' I have made my points in my previous comments. I will not reply on this topic anymore. Jackthomas321 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)