User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 7

Boxoffice

Sorry, was tied down with work. Yes, the Boxoffice.com address can be considered to be reliable. Create a Wikiarticle on the website. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Lets go question FA Lage Raho Munnabhai for its refs. Apparently its refs are non-RS sources. What say? xC | ☎ 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something fatally wrong with this "wiki system of hierarchy" if an article can pass GA and even A with flying colours and be approved by many who regularly view such articles and have significant experience in this area and the article winning some 25 supports even at FA for it to then suddenly go back to a B class after weeks of effort in the GA process. A clear waste of time and I fear the article will now degrade considerably if quotes and whatever else are removed just to hide her success. All it may need is a few negative quotes added and slight rediting to sustain its posiition which if they did rather than plotting around at wiki councils would be done quite easily . I've told it how it is on the "reassessment" page but I really have had quite enough of this as I'm sure you have ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see how they might feel it is written in Zinta's best interest and they have aright to try to demote it but I would rather they put the effort at trying to demote into correcting whatever is wrong with the article. I do think perhaps there are too many positice quotes when I am sure there are negative quotes which could balance the situation. No we shouldn't try to hide her success but I think there are ways of re writing some of the quotes into text so it doesn't sound gushing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at X centaur here for trying to demote both the FA and A class articles. The only problem with a lot of quotes from selective people is that it can be perceived as POV from one person's view rather than fact. I strongly suggest you remove some of the positive quotes which don't make her appear any more successful than she is. Such as Zinta is bubbly etc [ is this really needed? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting for a second that Zinta has not been praised highly for her work. Its just if you quickly scan the quotes in the article it can appear as POV. I'd recommend removing some of the quotes but writing it into text to provide the same information but not make it appear as POV ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has become apparent that any work I have ever tried to do for Indian film is under threat. Now this same person is trying to delete all Bollywood images. This indeed is disruption at its worst ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I don't want to ruin an article just for the sake of POV. And now that my image license is up for the axe I feel like all my hard work over the last few weeks is delibrately being slapped right back at me. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) If most of these sources are considered unreliable and POV then I think the task of writing a neutral and rich professional article with many different sources is impossible, chiefly because most online information is from fan-oriented sites. I do think it is important not to rely on fan sites but I feel if we purposefully try to remove these we are left with a sparse number of sources and a basic article. I don't feel I can do anything further to improve it if I haven't got any neutral and professional sources to write it to begin with particularly as I only know of some of her films not anything about her reception. Great articles or FA articles always appear to have an abundance of good sources that can be used -this is what makes them easier to write. The less sources available which fit the "reliable" criteria the increasingly difficult it is to attempt to write one. I don't know if I can do anything else to help you regarding this, I;ve tried to tone it down but it probably makes the article seem worse to you. Each time I go to move on with my work, I hear the news that something worse has happened time and time again and that it not only failed FA but is to be demoted back to B and that the image license is also now being questioned. I was thinking that sources like Times of India are reliable and these are the type of references needed but if this is not regarded as trustworthy then the article cannot develop ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the Indian critics who are commenting on these films haven't any assertion of who they are or their credentials which argue that it is a reliable quote even if they are professional or notable -this is what is being questioned . I believe that some of them are adequate, but it certainly is unfair that there seem to be more prominent American films critics and newspapers which review films and actresses than Indian which makes writing the Jolie article ten times easier. If we could assert that they are equally adequate sources and also prominent professional critics and add some negative reviews to balance it , it could be fixed. I've tried to attempt to save it . Wow this is a stalemate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think the best thing to do now is to create a list of sources which can be used without question in the article and make a list of Indian film critics who indeed are professional and work for professional bodies and can be cited in the article and attempt to find sources which are balanced around that. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I don't see any problems with things such as citing Taran Adarsh from indiaFM.com -I would look at this and think it was fine. This has been made so much more difficult than it has to be!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am finding it a little peculiar that all of the strong objections on this are from Indian wikipedians only. Do they know something about these sources and her reviews that I don't? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I would suggest you to remove references to her entire interview, unless you can come up with other third-party sources that say the same, because self opinions will always be biased. I am saying this because if I do not question it, some other editor will question it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are quoting the Jolie article quite often, if you look at the quotations in Jolie they are from reputed newspapers like Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and by Pulitzer Prize-winning critic, Roger Ebert which provide weight to the quotations. Whereas, I am not sure what standing Anish Khanna of the site Planet Bollywood, Akash Gandhi from Planet-Bollywood, Ashok Nayak and others have and whether their comments are notable and whether they should be taken at face-value. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am responding since you requested me to respond. For the nth and final time, ApunKaChoice, Lakes paradise, IndiaFm and others should go and only then I am open to discussion. Until then, I will find it futile to discuss anything. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A mention in Rediff, does not make a source as reliable. Even the rediff link that you have provided is a net guide. It does not mean anything and does not add a stamp of reliability on those sites. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

At first glance when I'd seen Zinta, I was glad at how the article shaped up, how the content was massively added to, and simply overjoyed at it clearing GA! But I still had some doubts, which I had raised earlier on the talk pages -

• I've never supported random critics' quotes in the article anyway. Non-notable, as well as possible bias.
• I am strongly against sites which have random critics throwing their own half-baked random ideas, as well as which carry gossip, related to films or the actors in it. This belief of mine was in the background earlier, but I've always shown it - its just gotten stronger due to this FAC.
• I still strongly support sites such as askmen, etc which are known to an international audience, which possibly sees the fact that these are reliable reputed sources.
• I am strongly against quoting too much from self-interviews. For example, some interview (it was Mukerji) said,"(laughing) yes, perhaps I am the best actress today" and the interviewer notes that finally so-and-so admits "she is the Rani of todays actresses". and that whole "i am the best actress" was quoted in the article. Personal biases do exist. You might just be sitting there saying "Its mukerji, what do I care?" but I'll say tjat whether it is Mukerji or Zinta, we must keep self-quotes to a minimum, or we fail FAC again.
• Again, like I'd said earlier, I was reading up on the FA criteria and going through previous FACs but hadn't really got the time to get to it myself. And one of the first things that we should have done was, yes, made sure the article got a thorough copyedit. It was our (the editors) fault that we didn't have that fixed.

I don't really have much to say. I'm going to continue working on this article, alongwith Mukerji, and hope that both these articles hit legitimate FA in a few months.xC | ☎ 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at X centaur here for trying to demote both the FA and A class articles.

I did not mean to support their demotion. But theres no other way to clear FA. Is there?xC | ☎ 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity

Yeah, I will write a message. Also please keep the discussions on editing in article talk page. This will help other editors in following the discussions being made. Also it will keep all discussions at one place. Gnanapiti 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotes in the middle of a paragraph hinder the flow of the article. I'll rewrite the quoted sentence to include her terrible experience but will not bring back quotes. As I've said before, I'm not interested in what some other article looks like. It's the responsibility of those editors to make the article readable. I'm only interested in this article and will make whatever I can to make it a better one. Gnanapiti 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hello Shahid
Can you please provide more useful edit summaries than just a plus symbol (+) ? That way it would help other editors, also serves the purpose of having edit summary feature. Thanks, KNM ^Talk 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, well done. I usually write (+)es when I mak minor edits. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to keep going

Hi! The very act of editing in wikipedia sometimes leads to immense stress. I can well understand that. I have seen several instances and myself suffered from a few minor instances. Especially FACs sometimes prove to be very stressful. I have one medicine :) Just step back for a while. Give it a short break. Do other staffs, your real life, or, maybe some other articles/random articles in wikipedia. Meanwhile, let the article evolve, let it take a new shape whatsoever. However, do not forget to save the present format of the article (or a version that you like) in your user subpage (or anywhere else).

After a few days, return to the article. See what are the changes, if at all. Compare with your stored version. Then, again keep going. During this break, just do not revert anything in the article (except blatant vandalism or typos). Even better, you can collect some sources which will not be contested for reliability (newspapers etc).

Listen, I have experience of a few FACs. Usually, all the comments are very healthy for the article. And regarding GA review, personally I don't pay any heed to the GA staffs. My recommendation would be not to get worried over the GA review. If it fails GA review, so be it. The article will soon be ready for FAC again. GA is not a necessary prerequisite for FAC.

So, just keep going. And have good faith that all the comments are meant for improving the article, notwithstanding whatever personal reasons you believe may be involved. Believe me, the article is in pretty good shape. I can predict a succesful FAC soon :)

Due to extremely busy schedule, I am unable to edit the article frequently. I shall try my best. Keep it rolling, man...Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta gadbad

In "Early life and background", it says Zinta took admission in St Bede's College in Shimla, opting for English Honours. In the next paragraph, it says, Zinta completed school at the age of eighteen and enrolled at the University of Mumbai. She initially planned to study for an English honours major, but later decided to pursue psychology.

Once she opted for English honours in Shimla. Again she took admission in univ of Mumbai, and discarded English honours. There is something gadbad either in timeline, or, the construction of the sentences. Please attend to it.

Meanwhile, I am doing moderate-to-harsh copyedit of the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if apunkachoice or planet bollywood are reliable. Yes, we may need to add/remove several things afterwards. Let me first have a full go at the article today (I have some time today). I will notify you when I will be done for today. Then you can modify. But again, it is better to dig up better (the reliability of which will be less disputed) sources, such as filmfare, stardust, rediff, Indiafm, TimesofIndia or other newspapers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I am probably done for the day. And as KNM told beneath, now on the discussion related to teh article will be on the articles's talk page. It seems to be directed towards a successful FAC soon. Cheers :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Shahid,
Can we please discuss the article related issues in the article-talk page. So that, other editors can also add value to the discussion. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I advised you earlier, step back for a while. Do no edits except typos etc in the article. Indeed you may have violated 3rr by now. So, just let the article take its own shape. And search google news (not just google) to come up with non-debatable sources.

And yes, assume good faith. I have not looked at the edits made by Sarvagnya, but the edits by KNM seemed perfect to me.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed that tag for dubiousness from teh prominent leading sentence. provided ref from the Hindu and rediff. Just be cool, and provide good references that cannot be debated. Even if someone challenges the rediff source (because it was based on user vote), the hindu article is there to anshttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestampwer. So, try to come up with newspaper articles as much as possible, try google news.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

'Prominent" - probably not needed. It will be an unnecessary addition. Leading is perfect.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More on Zinta

Need a source for her byuing a house and/or moving there. This " Preity Zinta Up Close And Personal. FemaleFirst.co.uk (11 February 2006)." citation does not look to be reliable, and I could not find any info on the house in teh article on a quick glance.

There was a MMS controversy that involved some fake nude picture. It's notable. Add that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sad!?

Hi Shahid: Sorry to hear you are sad! Hope it is general seasonal blues and not really bad event! Please let me know if I can help in some way?

"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: And this, too, shall pass away." - Abraham Lincoln

I did have a request regarding the Shaktism article, where you kindly requested a peer review. I fear the review process has gone adrift. Someone promoted it to an A; Redtigerxyz (who somehow seems to have self-appointed himself as guardian of this article's progress or otherwise) is saying a demotion to B will somehow accelerate its evolution to FA status. I cannot argue with him because I do not know much about the whole process anyway; maybe he is right, but sounds pretty iffy to me. So if you feel like doing a good deed, maybe you can swoop in over there and save the day! :-) Thanks, and please do let me know if I can help in the cheering-up dept. With all best wishes (Devi bhakta 00:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC))

Re:

Hello, Shahid, I read some of the other comments on your talk page and of course the one you left on mine. I'm really sorry that you're going through such a hard time at the Zinta article. Some of the other editors may be a bit rough, but you're holding up very well and doing exceptionally great work, over there. I wish I had a little more time to help you, but college is taking it's toll on me. I'm very sorry. However, to cheer you up, there's a little something on your user page. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta update

Hi! I have created a daughter article Personal life of Preity Zinta. Add whatever you want to add there. But do not add anything in teh Preity Zinta article now. Let it rest for some days. I will drop by whenever I can get some time, and try to improve, and, more importantly, shorten the article.

One thing I should tell you, brevity is a very necessary element for good articles. Although large size (within a limit) is not a hurdle for FAC, I can tell you from my brief experience in Wikipedia, brevity is a major plus for FACs. As I earlier adviced you, please do not do any major edit in the article now. Please, this is a sincere request. No addition of quotes, or, anything else, for some days to come. If you find any good material, add that to the daughter article, and can be added later on in teh main article, with discretion. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all telling that the way I am editing is final. I will take like 2-3 days. Then the merits and demerits of all the quotations/ length of controversies can be discussed. Indded, all these controversies staffs (except the Bharat Shah case in case of Preity Zinta) have very less weight. For example, her quote about Marc Robinson affair. That is hardly notable. "So what if she said???" - would be my reaction. Because similar quotes people give after many such break-ups (take, for example, the recent Shaheed-Kareena break up). It hardly matters.

On the other hand, her standing in Bharat Shah case is really commendable, since it was against the trend, and on a relatively much more important topic. However, the way I have cut down the Bharat Shah episode does not de-highlight her courage, my edits only cut down the details (who Nazim rizmi, Preity's confidng in him etc, that's better dealt with in the daughter article. Readers can always go to teh daughter article to have a detailed look).

Same as popularity is school quote. Almost everyone are popular among their own set of friend. In fact, even if she were the most-beloved monitor in the school, that's hardly mentionable in this encyclopedia article.

I have a in-between stand in case of the ness wadia and Krishnamurthy case. In both of the instances, I have given brevity an upper hand compared to detailing. however, in these two cases, some more detail may be necessary. We'll decide that later.

Regarding the character names, yes I was probably a bit more harsh in deleting most of those. However, all character names have been listed at the end in the filmography table.

yes I have noted the delisting. That's better, because it is technically bad to have an article both in GA review and FAC :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But one thing remains pivotal. Is boxofficeindia reliable? Is ibosnetwork reliable? Because the article uses numerical data from these sources, their reliability is vital. Other debatable sources (apunkachoice etc) may be easily replaced. But numerical data replacing is tough. ibos seems RS to me. I will write that in the talk page. But, not sure about boxofficeindia.

You may try to gather the revenue data for the films from other reliable sources (newspaper, indiafm etc). I am also trying. Unless, the numerical data are reliably sourced, we cannot go for an FAC. If such reliable source are not available, we even may have to remove those numerics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nichalp supports the reliability of Boxofficeindia? Where did he tell that? If so, I would believe it is RS. However, what I believe is not the question. What can be proved is RS.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was checking figures for Koi Mil Gaya. IMDb and IBOS figures tallied. IMDb is RS. Besides, the exact trade verdict (hit, semi hit etc) although absolutely helpful, is not necessary always, it the figures that tells the audience (both income and expenditure). If IBOS turns out to be a more reliable source than boxofficeindia, IBOS needs to be used. In addition, another supporting citation from a newspaper/magazine won't be bad.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I left Nichalp a note. His advice is great, please try to start two new articles, on boxofficeindia, and, ibos. Indeed, indiafm also lacks an article.

Multiple citing for box office figures/data won't hurt. So far, it seems the RS-ness of ibosnetwork is more than boxofficeindia.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because BoI does not clealry state their way of working, their source of data etc. IBOS does.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Much depends on teh reliability of sources such as BoI and IBOS now. If at least one of them are proved to be RS, the data will be fine. Otherwise, we'll have to find out more number of RS citations for figures (which will be tough). After that, I will go through the article once again. And will have to check all the citations also ( a really pain-in-the-ass job). Then only, FAC. I have shifted the debate on RS to the India project notice board. Let's see the response.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Yes, sticking to chronological order is best. I quickly glanced over the changes. It seems perfect. Will take closer look when i again have some time. Nice going. But the vital point next is the reliability issue. Let's see what is the response in the India notice board. Your suggestions on teh controversy etc is in my mind. First, let's try to get over with the RS issue, because without that, FAC is not possible. Then we'll discuss more about the controversy staffs. Meanwhile, let it be on the version it is now. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's great. I am going through some hard time here in NY. Did not see any movie in hall in last 4 months :( not even Chak De...only saw some films online and cd/dvd. Enjoy OSO. It's hard core masala masti...as I read the reviews. And after Zinta is over, get some work done on Shahrukh !--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

• Cheers for the Barnstar =]

• AND HAPPY DIWALI :]

• Have you been able to catch Om Shanti Om, or Saawariya yet, (It's taking some time to update the whole cast of the previous one's - considering almost 50 played Cameos!) Universal Hero 19:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cinema was closed? Which part of the world do you live in..........? OSO or Saawariya? Universal Hero 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Long Time

Shahid long time haven't heard from you. Although, it was only five days back, it feels like ages since I have been on Wikipedia. LOL. In these days, so many BAD things have happened and I didn't even know about it. I just found out that BLOFELD left Wikipedia. OMG! what happened? It's so sad because he has contributed so much to Wikipedia. I bet it was probably due to the non-rs sources vs. rs sources. This issue is bringing in a lot of trouble for us. I also couldn't believe that Zinta's article has been delisted as a Good Article. What more can they do now?? Seriously, Wikipedia can become so stressful sometimes. I know it's late but I just wanted to wish you a HAPPY BE-LATED DIWALI!! University life has been so hectic and time-consuming that I hardly have the time to come on Wikipedia. Just to let you know that Preity Zinta's article is looking better day by day. Keep up the good work. BTW, I so wanna watch Saawariya but judging by critics' as well as peoples' comments, the film SUCKS!! LOL. I was looking forward to it. Many like OSO better!! BTW have you seen any of them. I wish I had the time to go to a cinema to watch them. Best Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Contributor Barnstar
		For being one of the most helpful and kindest Wikipedians as well as contributing so much to Preity Zinta's article and many other Bollywood related articles and never giving up hope. Keep up the good work my friend. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Shahid, could you change the title of Zinta's film, Mera Bharat Mahan to Heroes. I was able to move the page but when I tried changing the title, it won't let me. Also if you could, could you changed the release date from Jan 25/08 to May 1/08. I have included the ref. in the production section. If you can't find it, here it is [1]. Thanks. --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same for me as well!! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For a Resilient Editor

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For a resilient editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets blunders or extremely difficult situations impede his growth as Wikipedian and has the ability to recover with a smile. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shahid. I'll return Monday , I'm not going to let a situation like that get to me and be a reason for me to leave - this project needs me!! - but I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay away from the Zinta article and is has caused me too much grief!! - I felt I did a great deal to help it and I wasn't going to sit around and fuss over an article which many others clearly agreed was good. Here's an award which is well deserved. I hope you don't blame me for walking out but I felt I was getting in too deep and having to spend hours wasting my time justifying it to people when I felt I was getting side tracked from my other work. Meanwhile check out British Indian hottie Laila Rouass. Byeee! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My take

Hi! First, the most important thing, the way I am editing the article at present is not final, and I will again look to all your/others' concern once the my initial go is finished (which is almost done, the most vital remaining concern being the reliability of sources supporting the numerical figures),

Now, let's discuss at length. No I am not angry!! Why should I be angry? I respect all the concerns/point of views of your (and everybody else). No one WP:OWN the article, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else.

I have not read the Jolie article. I will, and then express my views on a comparative note. regarding the daughter article, it is a good plan per Wikipedia:Summary style. Let's suppose one reader who does not know anything about Zinta bumps into the article (and let's hope that this hope that this happens on the day the article is on main page as FA :) ). The chance that he will have the patience to read the full article is very low. Most stray readers read only the lead. So, lead is the most important part of the article. We'll improve that/seek improvement from others as/if needed. And, it is better to cater the usual reader first, and then leave option for a more dedicated reader who can look up the daughter article, if s/he feels to.

Next, this is an article about an actress, and so the most important facet of her life is her acting career. I think, at present, the acting career is ok. Anything else in her life is secondary to the acting career. Jolie is a personality whose extra-acting life generates more interest that Zinta's extra-acting life , for several reasons. So I think, Zinta's extra-acting life, especially early life, is best kept as brief as possible. We are not writing the "explain the character" type of a question in a literature exam here (in which case, literary prowess along with flowery examples of personal life/accomplishments would have been handy in characterising the persona).

Daughter articles are always encouraged when dealing with a longish article. The article, at present, is not really long. But even then, I personally would favour even more shorter length. One thing I can predict is if we add more of personal life/extra-acting life, the article would go on to look more of fan-cruft.

Going through the comments in the previous FAC, the major points are (a) reliable sourcing (b) fan-cruft and flowery look. Let's decide one thing. We are trying to go for a successful FAC (I am trying, not because I am a great fan of Zinta, but because I get excited about any India-related FAC), and for that IMO the present status is better than the previous FAC version (this I tell not only because of whatever FAC-experience I have, but also the mood of the comments in the previous FAC). Please continue the trust on me, the article is taking a better shape, and the only major concern for me is the reliable source thing.

Do not think that many editors were disliking the article because they have some personal grunt against you/ disliking against Zinta. People here in general have good sense of how wikipedia works/how FAs should look like,. And I personally respect the edotors who constructively commented in the previous FAC. Nichalp and Tony are the most efficient copy-editors I have seen (and learnt from) in wikipedia. Let's give the article a better try in FAC. The less incorporation of extra-acting life, the better the chance would be. Also, teh more incorporation of extra-acting life, the harder it would be to keep the tone down.

Anyway. right now, I am not editing the article. Will have more looks later. I am enjoying beer and Bhool Bhulaiya in computer, How was OSO? All the critics seem to be dumping Saawariya.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick reply (have to sleep now). There is no fundamental problem in having a daughter article, and adding staffs to the main article. There is no need to remove the daughter article right away. Having a daughter article is not going to harm the main article anyway. Even if teh daughter article is a copy of a part of the main article, it will not going to harm the FAC (although in that scenraio the daughter article might face AFD). So, no need to worry about the existence of the daughter article.

Regarding teh content of the Zinta article (controversy and early life), I will comment later. I will read the Jolie article first.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld is back

This is what I figured. An article on a personal life of an actor is actually a target for AFD - I've moved it to the name "Background and personal life of Preity Zinta" to try to make it look more encyclopedic. It would be a shame to loose all that info. The situation of whether an article is "B-class" or A class or FA -class is POV anyway and a decision made by a tiny amount of people, however much they try to brandish the "top criteria". Its funny how an article can be considered FA class by many people and not be only a few. I also find it double standards that in an FA nomination it isn't a vote with a clear win 25-6, yet was rejected but in the GA reassessment it was taken out on grounds that it was nominated to be removed 8-2, again by the same tiny group of people. People reading the article can make their own minds up whether it is a great article or not. You can't please everybody, which was clearly the case here. I'm glad Dwaipayanc is taking the initative to copy edit and address tone and references which I suggested so many times previously but it was too little too late. Heads up the both of you anyway, I know it will reach FA eventually after an immense amount of effort. Good luck. Somebody might want to start an article on Marc Robinson - this sounds like a welsh name! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As for article length Dwaipayanc see Che Guevara an FA article which is 121kb!!! over 4 times the recommended length. i think this article is fantastic ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks amigo. I've been away 5 days and that is costly - I can't stay away on grounds that this site has a couple of unreasonable editors , so back to work. Best of luck and although I won't be editing the Zinta article -I will continue to improve the majority of the Bollywood articles over time as before with minor edits such as adding cast sections/ posters amd templates etc, and I always welcome you to talk to me, i find it easier to work if I don't feel completely alone. Best regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Phew I'm knackered now. I've just started about 40 years of Hong Kong cinema!! Its starting to look much better now but it will take ages to complete every year fully and rid of the red links. Getting it up and running is the most important I think - look how British films of the 1970s has developed for example. Eventually it will be complete by country, and hopefully India too if Pa will kindly return and complete it!! Yes sometimes she edits every day and then you don't hear from her for ages. I was debating whether to split the Bollywood films by year. If all the titles are added I don't know but the pages may become oversized. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oww my head!! I'm done. I need to get some air now and then lie down!! ouch that was a marathon - but I've got a task which I though would take over a week to do done. Heeee!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'm out of context. What do you mean by ToI can use BOI ? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC) BOI = Box Office India I gathered this. Whats Tol? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Ah I'm with you - Times of India. Ah technically this should be absolutely fine - but it is concnerning that there is no home page on the BOI website. If there was I could contact them. Ths is a concern I think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When I meant I was out of context, I mean I haven't been on wiki much today, my head is full of online business jargon -I begun looking at setting up an online business where I can buy from wholesale sellers and make big profits and hopefully watch money flow into my bank account while I sit back and relax and edit wikipedia!! I have been attempting to join a stock seller site and am looking at selling in a range of fields notably electornics - buying like 500 camera accessories for £90 and then sellinh them off individually for around £10 each - now thats a potential £5000 from that alone. Once my funds becomehigher I will start to invest in stocks and shares and stuff.

I wasn't disappointed about the Zinta article so much as the actions of the people who brought it down anwhere they also contacted admin to try to get the Bollywood image agreement ruined also. For me this clearly isn't trying to help wikipedia and is delibrately destructive, including wiping out the BOI site as a source also. This user appears very difficult indeed - it makes me wonder what his intentions really are. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found a site called http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/india/ but this is probably likely to be even more questionable even though an email address is there to ask how the statistics are made and compiled by who . The BOI thing should be sorted out asap to prevent further grief. I also think it might be better to start an article on the Indian fm.com as well -it is certainly notable enough ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Yes a nasty business indeed. but the situation told me what is classified as a GA or FA really isn't all that important particularly when it causes so much grief making minor edits to try to please pickers. Sure its nice to have the article imprinted with an FA but the previous nomination told me an FA is one particular users interpretation of it, e.g how can experienced administrators regard it as a clear FA and others consider it a "pile of garbage". Something is wrong somewhere particularly as it passed a GA and A relatively quickly but was snatched by the same people. Articles are subject to different perspectives. For me content and actual information provided is so much more important. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK I've contacted the Box Office India site requesting for details on the publisher and to assert reliability of the statistics ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Me personally I prefer detailed articles which provide an abundance of knowledge but are still written conciselyand in a structured way. If editors can't read 30kb + articles as they might start to yawn then I would propose they use simple english wikipedia for kiddies. For me the Jake Gyllenhaal isn't up to FA quality and I'm from that wikiproject.Yet I have seen many B class articles notably some hurricane and military history related articles which are stunning, and appear to be well referenced yet have been continuously been rejected in the hands of a few and remain a "B". ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm glad you see exactly what I had a problem with . How can the system be taken seriously when it is plagued by the POV of editors who influence the outcome of things. Whether they dislike her or not any FA approval is going to be decided by a tiny group of people anyway however much they try to brandish a "set FA criteria". How can this possibly reflect the views of everybody - the thousands who read it and use it?? This is partly why wikipedia has been heavily criticized for making its major decisions by such a limited consensus rather than actual credentials. What surprised me is that they were all Indian, were they part of the Anti-Zinta Terrorist Group or something? I respect people for identifying and suggesting improvement that could be made to the article but it was the disparaging way in which it was conducted that appalled me that seemed to intentionally disrupt things. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate your email address. Feel free to email me. I have my address on here -just go to my user page and click "email this user". Sometimes I feel that many people are watching ever word said on our user talk pages. Mine for sure is watched by tons of people. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said my email address is there. Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I use yahoo. Try yahoo. Thats a good one. Wow I'm surprised you haven't got one, you often need to state your email address for most sites these days ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Try http://www.yahoo.com/ ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes!!! I've been accepted by http://www.stockauctions.co.uk/sauctions/ as a member. I see gold! Now I just await the box office reply ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Could you start an article from this link please? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta update

Well, I could not manage to read the Zolie article. Am slowly adding some more stuffs in personal life. Will take some time.

As Blofeld has pointed out, there are several FAs with much more length than the prescribed optimal length. Even then, the goal should be to keep it as brief as possible. Indeed, I see a comment in the previous FAC where the length was questioned, and creation of daughter article(s) was suggested.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure so sure about the is/were etc. The sentence is in past tense, so IMO, it should be maintained in past tense (like we learned in childhood days that unless some universal truth is being spoken of, all the verbs should conform to the same tense).

Also, the finding of the women is a speculation/possibility. That's why I did "were" (although I am not sure if that is the rule). Am still not sure if it would be "is".--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Bharat Shah episode is defintely looking more informative now. I will touch that portion, if at all, only during the last copyedit.

The RS is going to be a tough issue. Even IBOS, as expressed by Sarvagnya in the talk page, may be only borderline RS, unless the authors behind the site can be established. So, my advice, start looking for numerical figures in established RS (newspapers etc). Don't magazines like Stardust and Filmfare give box office data?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I have a personal observation. DCH does depict the routine life of Indian youth. At best, it depicts the usual life of Indian "affluent" or "upper class" youth. It is not the life of average Indian youth to be sent to Australia on a few day's notice. rather, RDB depicts an usual life of Indian student youth.

Personal opinion apart, the two links do seem to be ok for a sentence like that (considering rediff is a RS). Still, the characters in DCH were from a class distinctly different from middle class of India. So, I have reservation here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Because Bollywood alone doesn't produce 1000 movies annually. Total number of movies released in 2005 were 240, that too only 181 movies being released in Hindi. Gnanapiti 06:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes a shame about the posters -again it is open to debate and indeed it does seem strange that some articles have an abundance of non free images such as cartoons etc but this one can't even when it is used to illustrate the object in question. I'd imagine images pre 1947 are public domain but a major thing about Bollywood is visual and I agree it looks bare without it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OH my god. Sarvagna has slyly found out who authorized the Bollywood blog and has got hold of Riana in the commons and is trying to delete all the images -|Zinta has gone first -isn't that strange. Check out This. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Things continue to get worse. Now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bollywood film clans. I am gobsmacked by this. You can he possibly justify his chain of actions as contructive and in good faith? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy is a fricking joke See this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him anway. I'm tired of wasting time on his related actions but when he systematically attempts to delete content or portray things in a bad light , and indeed cross my path then he needs to be sorted. He is not worth it, but the content that he is attempting to ruin is -a clear problem but what can you do? Nobody is gonna see what he is doing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not great, and it is certainly not something I or wikipedia should have to tolerate. I can't imagine what his goal is ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous was deleted . The one with the source is there now temporaily to show User:Riana or whoever initally deleted it that is owned by the site. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See this. Would you rather no image at all ? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely what I am annoyed with - as it looks like he has nearly persuaded Riana to drop the agreement which I spent weeks sorting. This on top of the wasted nomination time is the icing on the cake/ ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Look its there temporarily to show Riana that is one of the images which have been validated and the site has added the label to it to confirm its ownership. Once it is settled then the label can be removed. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Once agian I've gone out my way to explain and try to make everything all right. I'm sick of it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe how much time I've had to waste on trying to protect it. All I want is for articles and images to be secure and not under attack so that I can continue editing productively in peace. It just isn't worth the bother with them. If this gang of editors concentrated on rewriting articles and treated other people outside there group with an ounce of respect it would make a huge difference don't you think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well its up to them if they want to degrade "their" own articles. If they really think it helps wikipedia by removing them all whatever. Just because they use a few screenshots or promophotos which can be excluded and the amateur ones used this of course means every image on the site is "stolen" (of course) and is a reason to ruin the whole agreement because this of course really helps educate people huh? . I tried to help give this something that would benefit people long term and make the world able to visually recognize these people and I end up looking like the bad guy. Its there problem not mine -Devendra also said he has tried to help wikipedia and can't do anything if these people want to be cynical and reject it. I doubt now anybody will ever be able to get free images of all the actors as it is clear what the goals of these people are to block them and claim they are all copywrighted -to get this kind of deletionist response from Indian editors not only on this but these articles is rather surprising to say the least. I really don't know what their intentions are. Again it shows that sources are so much important to them than educating people. Don't expect me to waste any more heavy time on Bollywood again, they are the ones missing out on my contributions here. I must have wasted four weeks and it appears it is back to square zero (aside from your great improvements and the few others only!!) because of these people. PLease keep in contact with me though. Adios ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this beautiful? Ah the tranquility of wikipedia. How are you anyway you've been rather quiet of late? Have you seen Bhool yet? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(In my english gentleman voice): Thats "spiffing young chap". Would you care for a bottle of chardonay and a pallet of oysters?? Lolyloly. Vidya Balan has a lovely face doesn't she "una cara muy bonita". So beautiful and clear -she's great to look at. Kumar looks quite different in it that what he did in the 90s -he looks quite geeky there!! That film has had some advertising hasn't it!!!! Although as you can imagine nobody has heard about it over here except a few. Someday perhaps Her Majesty's Government will pay for some world cinemas around the country to start opening up people to other films and cultures. Saludos !!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow I've had a great day of editing on here today, the best in a long time - I'm feeling better than I have in ages. I feel so much better when I stay away from those people and don't feel stressed with them!!! I can get so much more done. I understand now why you weren't too moved by the zinta nomination as the same group of editors turn up every time, who turn up at every nomaintion or event to influence it!!!! Looks like the images will have to go now. Seems nobody around here wants to accept a present of 20,000 + free images!!! Crazy. There is one last chance to keep it which I've asked Riana to look into ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep I know. I've done pretty much all I can to make admin aware of his actions and that they are a potential threat to the fair running of wikipedia in the future. I have seen many exmaples of where they have combined to almost bully people and get there own way. I've also tried to highlight that some of their policies on their own articles are often misguided and missing the most important purpose of them. As John Carter said the report has made people more aware of him and them as a group than before and if other editors come across him in the future and report him again, sooner or later something is going to twig with admin. This could be months even years and it is clear not for me to personally waste any more time against them. If they really want the articles to improve I'd like to see them do a hell of a lot more about it. Hope you are well amigo!!!!!Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Some good edits he has done seem to bale him out of the vandal status but the evidence of his misconduct and misguided actions is overwhelming. He is a threat particularly as he is backed up by a handful of experienced editors on here which have gained a lot of respect from building content and new article. If you weight the ratio of good and bad edits I'm pretty certain it isn't 50 50. It is the attitude of them I find offensive and disregard for other "mindless trolls" ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you've been told about it -see Wikipedia:Peer review/Preity Zinta/archive1. Hopefully it can be improved through a rationale discussion to prepare it again ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Haaaa!!!! I am amazed by this. I have just been browsing through many articles and I came across Kaveri River linked in one of the Hindu articles just at random. The edit history is dominated by aggression and guess who by??? I'm amazed at the extent of it!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically unfortunately no as it violates the film company concerned where we are using their work to illustate something not owned by them (even though they'd probably be happy with wikipedia using it). I believe one or two screenshots should be permitted for actors as in discussing their film career they are closely linked. But it is because of the film rights there is a problem. If people want to get serious about wikipedia there should either be permitted in articles or not and be a universal standard. Many articles have them and many don't - they boundaries should be made mandatory so the policy is the same for every article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC) It appears images are used in a number of FAs doesn't it. I personally think they are great and of a lot of use not only to how the article looks but understanding the career of the person in question. There really needs to be some consistency around here. Agnelina Jolie now has no images from her films ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes. I am very busy. Was traveling for the last two days. Probably won't be able to come here before the weekend. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put the article for a peer review. The daughter article issue can be addressed then. Also, the RS issue. Community input is needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You told me Nichalp and spartaz opined that those sites are RS in the context of Bollywood. You can request them to write their rationale in the WP:INB, or talk page of Preity Zinta, or in the PR. Nichalp seems to be busy. Anyway, they may be able ti pot forward good points in favour. Then the case will be easier.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. So, IMDb is not RS for trivia, unreleased films etc. But it is RS for many other purpose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Let me tell you something. Check your behaviour in the PR, notwithstanding whatever comments the article gets. Put rational arguments/your points of views—that's fine. But not even the slightest hint of personal disliking of any comment/user. Please.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...this RS issue is bugging me. I doubt whether IMDb will stand as RS, see this. Box Office Mojo is reliable but does not have Indian Box Office reports of past movies. I have emailed the editor of IBOSnetwirk to clarify their "trade Journal" source. Let's see if they reply. This is going to be a pivotal issue, besides the images. Because, for numerical figures, we need un-debated RS. Or else, we have to remove numerical figures.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha...a slight ray of hope :) See this page. Pages like this from Box Office Mojo may solve the problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for screenshots of film, you will have to prove some exceptional reason. In general, screenshots are not permitted in the article of the actor etc. I am unable to quantify/qualify the "exceptional' reason here :( --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...very good example (Murphy)..So, you see, just like in many walks of life, the thing depends on presentation. Gift of the gab (or, pen). Have to emphasize the importance of the images in the image page. Think rationally, and come up with solid-sounding rationale, a la Murphy's article. Let's have a try.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

have to remove all those bollyvista, apunkachoice, Indiantelevision etc. Only BoxofficeIndia, IBOSnetwork, and IMDB are being kept for the time being. Have to replace those by clearly RS news media. Don't keep bollyvista.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Indiantelevision.com seems RS to me as well. I hope we'll be able to defend that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Hey Shahid! Thanks for letting me know. I was going to do what you mentioned but was too busy with university. Exams are beginning soon and I am very stressed out these days. I plan to change the refs from non-RS to RS little by little. I might not even get to start until the weekend but I'll see what I can do. Is it that only reviews from non-RS sites are not allowed? From what I can see on Zinta's page, I've noticed that only RS sites like indiafm, bollyvista, etc. are used for reviews whereas for other info, such as D.O.B. or media app., sites like the one I mentioned at the top and sites like apunkachoice, indiainfo, etc. are used. Is that the case now? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Thanks a lot for your edits with Kapoor's page. You improved it a lot!! You're always there when I need help!! Once again thank you very much!! Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Shahid, I was wondering if we can add that she is one of the leading actresses in Bollywood. From what you wrote so far, I was thinking something like, Despite not having that many hits to her credit, Kapoor retains popularity ánd has established herself as one of the leading actresses in Bollywood. I know she is not at the top with Zinta and Mukerji but I feel that we should mention that she is at least one of the leading actresses in Bollywood. BTW JWM has helped her achieve this too. What do you think? Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta update

the following two definitely needs to be removed. They are not reliable:

1. From India with Love. AsianOutlook.com
2. Jhoom Barabar Jhoom has mixed overseas outcome. OneIndia

One is doubtful: Akshay Kumar & Preity Zinta in Bollywood New York Shows for Aron Govil Productions. Business Wire India

Replace these.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha!! That "fortunately" in the edit note made me laugh :) I have been through some FAcs in the past. And it is very stressful and irritating at times. Still, try to find out the enjoyment part. You'll love it :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I may be busy for next 2-3 days (probably will be traveling again), and may not be able to edit. Will try to keep an eye on the PR. Let it be on PR for some days more. The pivotal issue, still, is RS source, especially for numerical figures. If you have time, try to search for other non-debatable sources. We don't have to do much in the image issue. that's being taken care of. We have to go by whatever outcome of that debate.

Meanwhile, keep a cool head, and happy editing :) Cheers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw your message in Sandy's talk page, and left her a note, too.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :-)

Hello, I just read your message. Firstly, thank you for your kind words. What happened between us was just a difference of opinions blown out of context. I said some things I shouldn't have. Like yourself I read over what was said and realised that I was also very un-civil towards you. I apologize if I offended you in anyway possible. I hope we can work together like we used too. Again, Im really sorry.

You've been doing some great work on the Zinta page. I have not had a look at the developments but from your last message Zinta did go for the FA but did not get it. I'll have a look at the discussion that took place. I wish I could have given my opinion on the FA attempt. The thing is Im so busy right now that I have not got the time to edit here. I needed a break from Wikipedia so I stopped editing for a bit (or a month to be precise). So, I guess it's time to catch up. I better talk to Blof and find out why he left! I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards. -- Pa7 12:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Happened to be passing. I didn't realise it had just been edited!!! I feeling rather tired today so will be browsing and only making minor edits tonight. I'm so glad you made up with Pa7 -it was difficult liking both of you and being in between. Adios! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya! Thanks soooooooooooo much for the barnstar. That's really sweet! :-)

I know you must feel terrible about the Zinta article, you worked really hard for it. I saw that there are parent articles for her personal life, that's a good idea. Look, don't let anyone get you down, I know your really dedicated to Wikipedia. The issues will get resolved. I had a look at the FA discussion for Zinta and the link you provided me, essentially it was that one user who messed up things for everyone. I saw the he/she completely discredited boxofficeindia.com which is literally a main source of info for most Bollywood articles. What qualifies as a reliable source? Im sure boxofficeindia.com is a 100% reliable as is indiafm.com. Don't stress yourself out with what happened, at least you know that your on the right track (though it took me longer to figure out!!) Im thinking it that we take it one step at a time. We'll get it to GA and fingers crossed to FA. The work you've done on the article has provided a template for the other Bollywood articles around (as you've probably figured!) Im too busy with everything else that I have not got much time to edit here anymore. I need to get Blof's list finished and no offence to the anon's who edited on the page but the Om Shanti Om synopsis and page overall is terrible. I think the main problem with the Zinta article is the sources. Is their a discussion going on about this? Im going to have a skim round a see what's going on with everything. Looks like I missed out on a lot.

Whatever happened between us, is in the past and done with. I apologize again for my behaviour and really glad that we are working together again. I also missed the wicked conversations we had! As a show of appreciation I give you this:

I, Pa7, award Shshshsh the Bollywood barnstar for his complete dedication towards the related articles and his tireless effort in making sure the articles reach the highest standards. Your a huge asset to Bollywood cinema. Well done and keep up the good work :-) Pa7 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one for your growing collection! I should've given you this ages ago, but it's never too late. Congratulations my friend! -- Pa7 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mallika

Hi and thanks for your comments and edits! Your latest version of the site on Mallika is absolutely fine and impartial, and sorry if I sounded a bit too rigid before. The problem wasn't with your edits, it was some user who had claimed that Mallika is the sex symbol of India and such a wording is of course always something different than just saying that she's a sex symbol, as you did. There's nothing wrong with that. Cheers and keep up the good work! JdeJ (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood

First of all its nIkkul. Second of all, I am sorry to hear that your edit was reverted. It has ruined my day too:(

Businessweek is a credible source, and if someone reverts it, i will dispute with them about their reasoning. So dont revert it.

I dont want to praise Bollywood or to make people think its sooo great. This is an encyclopedia and I want to report the truth. I have been editing this encyclopedia for a long time and i know what neutral means, and i have totally been neutral in editing.

Adding an image on a particular actor is not PoV. That idea though is ur pov. You are supposed to give examples of what your talking about thru pictures and thats what im doing. And do not assume that i have added the image because she is fit or goodlooking. i have added it because she is an example of bollywood actors.

If you think that you cant have one actress, why is there a picture of Mahatma Gandhi on the India page? Why not Mother Theresa or Nehru or Tagore or Tilak? Does mahatma gandhi represent all of indias history? so please try deleting gandhis picture and see what happens.

I understand the license issue and i will try to fix it.

Nikkul (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to avoid an image of the 2000s actors as it could be seen as POV. However an image of Dharmendra, Amitabh and Rekha I think is very useful and avoids POV. I would avoid an image of the younger generation ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok - I have to admit that I think Bipasha is the fittest I've seen!!! but I don't think her image was suitable for the article. Amitabh certainly, but remember that the Dharmendra image is public domain -a free image which should always be used if obtainable. I thought rekha was a good idea seems as she has been one of the top actresses over many decades isn't this true? Photographs of advertisements is a clever way of getting one -I don't know though with people ike Sarvagnya around whether they'll try to claim this is a copywrighted source!!! I like nikkuls editions providing they are reliable but I am rather surprised Bollywood produces nearly 1000 films annually does this include the low budget ones with actors nobody has heard of?. I knew they churned then out -I thought it was nearer 200 films. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually somebody has been telling porkies with the Dharmendra license. how could that image possibly be taken before 1947!!! He would have been 12 years old at the very most!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A use of a film poster, one at the very least should certainly be a part of the film article -I couldn't give a flying monkeys what sarvagnya thinks. Its like how can you have an article on a film industry with abolishing any images whatsoever of the films? It will need a full rationale to explain its use but I think that is a good idea. I think it should be easier to claim use for this than for biography articles/ What attracted me initially to Bollywood films and actors was visual -I love the film posters and the stars look awesome. A bare article on Bollywood is like an article of Rembrandt without the paintings ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But on the same level of thinking somebody could ask -why is there a picture of Mukesh?, when we could have an image of Asha Bhosle or Lata? They are supposed to be encyclopedic examples of improving the article not a way of portraying who their favourite actor or singer is ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a way to find a freely licensed image though like the Dhool photo.Have a look on flickr for images like this but one which is freely available to distribute ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK -check your email one minute ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded -LOL! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't help it! Not worth it really but true! All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't me who moved it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema was moved for a reason. If you are unhappy with the move I suggest you speak to User:Girolamo Savonarola. I don't mind either way as long as people actually start working on the full scope of the Indian cinema project rather than the four or five articles which most appear to focus their attnetion on. There is so much more needs doing on its many other articles which seems to be neglected. If you are unhappy with the project page because it isn't tidy enough for you or whatever then change it if you want to ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I only redirected it back initally because a consensus hadn't been made not because you asked me to. I don't know if alienating the project from WP Films is the right move but I don't really mind as long as the members who are supposed to be a part of it (and haven't been here since 2005) aim to try to address the huge eveness in the quality of the articles. It only seems like a handful of editors are active on Indian cinema articles and even the most active editors on it leave for weeks. Do you think the project is really strong enough to be seperate? Or is there something of a good feeling that Indian cinema is the best so should rightly have its own project above all the other countries? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in certain issues it is easier to have the project seperate, but I thought that merging would benefit the quality of the articles as they are assessed -which as yet they haven't been -I guess as Giro's bene very busy. I should speak to Giro about it. Best regards. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is have a look at Indian cinema participants. How many of these can you say are really active? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said American films aren't part of it? They make up the majority of it!!! I'm always trying to get some of the members to realise there are other cinemas in the world apart from Hollywood!! Often WP Films seems like WP:American films which is why the task forces are partly important to try to encourage editors who never give world films a chance to try to develop other articles such as Indian or Spanish films etc! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Chinese cinema task force merged which used to be seperate projects like India.

Technically they should also be named Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese cinema then, the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Italian cinema, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spanish cinema and the other taskforces?. I'd suggest doing a project roll call like we did at WP Films a few weeks ago. Ask indian cinema members to put their name down again if they are still active. It would be good to get a real idea of which ones are active. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I figure a project move or renaming is quite important which ever way it goes and it should be discussed as a group also I believe. I'm sure there is a way where WP Films can assess articles . it doesn't matter really as long as the articles improve!! It'll be interesting what Giro has to say. Saludos!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They are irrelevant? Do you think I would add "irrevelant" comments for nothing? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Its difficult when a project is equally a part of both films and India but even like the huge Musicians is a part of biography naturally. Is there a real problem with it being part of Films? I know you want it to be unique and have the status of a seperate project but could you give me some of the benefits it would have of being seperate from the overall film project coordination? Films is intended to cover everything and the project being tied to films was intended once again to help it and organize it better over time. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know its a tricky one I sincerely apologise if I have appeared to offend you in anyway, not at all mate you know this, I'm just trying to think about how the articles can best be assessed and structured and improved with clear goals at even coverage. Unfortunately many wiki projects overlap which can often creates a conflict particularly between two major groups like WP Films and WP India. Sometimes there are three even four projects involved - the military history articles I know have had some conflicts. The most important thing is that the articles are assessed in relation to the rest of the project so there is a clear overall goal at improving them. I can see your point that as an equal part of both projects it should be seperate and seemingly evenly shared and you have every right to object. The thing is if there were more editors willing to assess all the Indian cinema articles and aim at addressing the inequality in articles and developing it as a whole I'd feel a lot differently. Of course nothing compensates for real editing and improvement of the articles themsevles but I think it is important we get some kind of strong system in how these articles are planned etc in relation to other work on the project. However huge the Indian film industry it is still a small component in relation to the enormity of the entire site. If we could get a gang of Shahid's, Yamlas, Pa7's and Plum couch's (when they are here), Bollywood dreamz's, Universal Heroes, and Dwaincamps (whatever his name is) all together and create babies multiplying this by ten I would be more convinced that this major assessment and overall improvement could be done. I am certain a way of WP films assessing articles and the Indian cinema group still given its authority or uniqueness can still be achieved. I am concerned about getting caught up too much in this and I don't want to offend anybody involved here so I'll leave it up to you to discuss. Just have a good think about the best way to improve all the articles. Adios. I'm having a mini Japanese toilet fitted for Mr Bigglesworth and he is required like me to squat down like a baboon! LOL! Best regards. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am a little curious at your intentions rather than being angry with you. Its just asking an Indian admin and then the whole Indian group saying that the project is under threat looks a little biased to me. I just don't know what benefit the Indian cinema project can have of being seperate other than apparent status when WP:Films are trying to help get all of the articles assessed and goals for improvement to them all which at present are being neglected. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

However if there is a way that articles can be adequately assessed and improved by WP Films and I begin to see real active editing all over Indian cinema by the group rather than the handful of articles at present I'd support it being seperate. Articles should not only all be assessed across Indian cinema but there should be goals , yes even for each article on how the improve it and there should be a lot more people looking to accomplish it. At present I don't see this and I don't even see anybody browsing the articles and leaving needed tasks in the to do list that I suggested. Most of your valued time is spent reverting vandalism on the core articles or having to justify your edits to people like Sarvagnya and there appears to be very few editors who work constructively within the group on a consistent basis, and are looking to address the vast uneveness of the articles. If I could see more people active and planning out the project goals I would feel differently ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shahid I thought I had explained all that Giro said and that merging was also an attempt to increase group activity not diminish it and encourage other editors from WP Films to help out along with the benefits of the formal asssessment which will take place on every article. I thought it had everything to gain by increasing involvement with a project as big as WP Films -you know I would only propose something if there could be a potential improvement in activity and the quality of articles!! I thought you knew this. I admit though I want to also start seeing results quickly. I also want the world to see how great an industry Indian cinema is!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I have to go back to bed now -I tried getting up but my head feels like it is loaded with a tons of bricks! I can't evne look at the screen straight. Wish Blofeld a quick recovery -he'll be back editing properly in a few days. All the best , the Bigglesworth One also sends his regards, Saludos ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hello again!

Hi! It would be nice if you can go ahead and change the format of the accessdate in all the citations. Yes, only on accessdates that pattern of date.

Also, make sure that all the cited references follow the same pattern, that is, templates in this case (cite web or cite news). If there are any inline citations that do not use templates, convert those to templates. Because inconsistency in referencing style is often pointed out in FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hello!

Hello Shahid, Anything done here can be reversed. It is best to get a consensus for the action, otherwise you will simply be reverted. Girolamo feels that all the members (except myself) had accepted the the proposal. If you are not comfortable with the move, you should start a new discussion on the talk page about whether to stay as a sub-page of Films and invite other members to discuss. I still believe that Indian cinema could be a separate project while being a work group under India and Films projects for assessment purposes. This is how all the work groups operate under the India project. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shaktism Thanks

Hi Shahid:

Just a quick note to say thanks for your recent message on the Shaktism discussion board. I am way out of my depth when it comes to the politics of article rating, so I do appreciate your kind effort to assist. Not sure where it will lead, but I am sitting back and curiously waiting and watching. One of these days -- not anytime soon, mind you; I know we both have our hands full with real life and other Wiki-stuff -- I would like to see what we could do for the Smita Patil article now that I have a bit of experience with the way things are done around here (for better or worse). Good luck with the Preity article; for what it's worth, it seems extremely good -- way above the typical standard for actor pages (Bollywood, Hollywood or any other -wood ;-) ) ... Please keep up the fantastic work!

Best regards ... DB

(Devi bhakta (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Hello

Hello, how you been? For the record, Im very happy that were on good terms again! I was reading through the Zinta article, and thought I'd make a suggestion but run it by you first. I think it would be a good idea to add more tv appearances because Koffee with Karan is already there but we cannot single that one out primarly just because it was hosted by Karan Johar. How about adding more appearances like her brilliant interview with Michael Peschardt on Peschardt's People. I watched a bit of that interview and she talked about culture, films etc. Or another one like Rendezvous with Simi Garewal. What do you think? -- Pa7 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, when your not busy have a look at this [2]. I heard this song today after ages. I remember when it came out in the UK, it was a massive hit, though Im not a big fan of Basement Jaxx. Isn't the female actress Divya Dutta? Im not sure cause from angles it does not look like her? If it is, then great! -- Pa7 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was very surprised that they removed the KWK reference. I found that reference and thought it was totally reliable but I guess I was wrong! Im trying to find info on her Peschardt's interview, I think it was in 2003 or 2004. I'll do some goggling for it. Gonna have to make sure that the reference (if I find any!) is classified as reliable!! -- Pa7 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I suggested adding the Rendezvous episode. I also watched that episode and that was probably the first time anyone saw her talk about her father's death in so much detail. -- Pa7 21:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Indian cinema

Replied on my talk page. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you are still speaking to me but you may be interested to know that I added Bollywood to the Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool amigo, Fresco!. Yes there is apparently now a $120 reward going to each of the top five editors of the most improved articles between now and Dec. 9 I think. I thought you might be interested in trying to greatly improve the Bollywood article and promote it. I spoke to the organizer yesterday who owns veropedia.com -which files wikipedias top work so it can't be reedited and he was amazed that one of the most serious issues was missing from wikipedia. Deforestation in Brazil. As this is the worlds most serious issue - removing the sink to absorb co2 emissions increasing global warming/natural disasters etc worldwide, and huge loss of biodiversity I have chosen to begin writing this article from scratch as I feel this is of prime importance to the encyclopedia don't you think? Its already begun but when I am feeling a little better I'll go for it ! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I started the Deforestation in Brazil article only an hour or two ago. Its developing quickly!! What do you think so far? I have between now and Dec 9 to work on this! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've only just started. Expect the article to develop at least four fold. Its in its infancy but I really think this is a priority to wikipedia to have an article on such a major world issue. There are an abundance of sources to go on and of course this is about a subject of which I am thinking of making my career. I've got at least ten days to stick at it. I have a massive section on the effects of deforestation to cover yet -soil erosion, biodiversity loss exmaination etc. And efforts of NGOS, etc at maintaining land etc. All the best! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kambakht Ishq

Hey Shahid, long time.... How're you these days? Thanks for creating the page on Kambakht Ishq I noticed that when you created the page, you created it with the working title of Kambakth Ishq but later moved it to Kambakht Ishq. According to me, the film is spelled the former. Reliable sites liked Indiafm.com, Times of India & Business of Cinema have also spelled it like the former whereas non-rs like Apunkachoice & PlanetBollywood.com have spelled it the latter. BTW, you can also notice that the article you provided as ref for the film has both the spellings. LOL. There are so many different spellings. One of the article [3] spells it like this: Kambhakt Ishq, but I think this can be ruled out because it comes from a non-RS. I think this will bring a lot of trouble to us. We should spell it like this: Kambakth Ishq, to go according with all the reliable sites. I wanted to go through this with you before moving it back again. What do you say? P.S. If you have time, take a look at Anil Kapoor's page. I've somewhat cleaned up & toned down the article. What do you think of it? Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Hello! Back in time you had added a merge template to the Preity Zinta article and its daughter article.

As you requested, the daughter page was merged into the main article as the info really belongs to the main article. Now, what should I do? I proposed the daughter article up to deletion. Is that what I have to do? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That would violate the GFDL. It should just become a redirect of the page was properly merged. I am glad an agreement was reached. -- Cat ^chi? 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So could you please help me? I'm just not a big expert in these things:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to help. What is the spesific problem? Everything looks in order. -- Cat ^chi? 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry, already done:) Thanks. What do you think about the article? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hawt! :)

Should be a GA or FA. I dono what to say. I know nothing about the topic.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey, there. Unfortunately, a recent software bug caused many pages with any "ref" or "nowiki" tags to be saved with incorrect "UNIQ" strings. One such page was User talk:Shshshsh/Preity Zinta; since I could tell where you were working from, I tried to copy over the original page and fix things, but it looks like you made some other changes. Since you're more familiar with what should or shouldn't be there, you may want to have a look for yourself. Apologies for any confusion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hello Dwai!

Hi! Yes, I am very busy these days.

Daughter article's existence (or non-existence) is not a problem. The real problem is the RS source. Since the BoI (and maybe some other sites such as IBOS) are still debated, I really do not know what should be the next step. A good way may be to go for an FAC, where it would get the input of a larger audience. I am sorry I cannot do further copyedit at this moment. You can go on for an FAC, and see the response. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and what about the images? I could not follow that issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Hi,

I have opened up a topic for discussion here. You may want to participate. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)