User talk:Shshshsh/Archive 2

Wow! That's good work. Alright keep the popularity section like that. I'll just deduct the polls since they are already on the awards page. I put polls separately because Xc thinks those magazines give journalistic information and not encyclopedic material. They would've deleted them anyway, so I'm creating a safe haven for them on that page and it's appropriate there. But you know they'll come after Popularity section soon enough but I'm okay with some parts of it and I'll defend you. The part about Afghanistan and Russia, that's unneeded because we all know Bollywood stars are a world-wide phenomena today. Yeah I know. I don't know why he wanted Rani but again, he did cast Ash for a brilliant role for Iruvar which was her first film. And Mani's next film after Bombay. And after that he did Dil Se. And Ash was amazing in that movie. So, I guess he must've thought new talent is not all that bad. I'll talk to you tomorrow. - shez_15

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

Regards,xC | ☎ 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's really trivial since Beyonce has posters of her everywhere but there's no way there's anything on her page suggesting she's popular because of that. It's so trivial. Anyway, what's wrong with Preetam? It is a girl's name and it's very sweet. Plus, it's a Sikh name. Possibly, her real name. And about the comment, here's a ref for what Preity said: [1] - shez_15

Well I'll check the video tomorrow as it is available on musicnmovies.com. But anyhow, can you help on Kareena Kapoor's page? It is really biased. So, I'm so excited for TRRP. I'm going to go for the first show in the evening tomorrow. - shez_15

Oh Shahid! You should go watch the movie. Both Saif and Rani have done a wonderful job. The kids are even great. I love the music. It was really awesome. By the way, talking about a look is part of what the role is. Plus, the role is pretty much depicted on the movie page itself. And like on Hollywood actors' pages, you can see in the career section, there is written stuff on their preparation. How each one fit the role? What did they do to get into shape? If you want, you can put this for Preity's page too. Her look in Lakshya and Armaan are notable ones. Plus, we all know that designers are the major part of a movie. Fashion is what makes movies a success. If the fashion is followed from the inspiration of the movie, then it means the movie set a trademark. Like in the case of Bunty Aur Babli. The whole year (2005) kept those light contrasting colors on shalwar kameez from Vimmi's look. The light yellow and blue was very popular. And the green and orange was everywhere in stores, not only in India but also where I live in Vancouver. This city has a strong Asian community and each new Hindi movie is in cinemas each week in the English theatres. Recently, Dhoom 2 has set a trademark with those mini-skirts. Ash's tan look has been very popular with people. Rakhi Sawant has been majorly influenced. Before in Main Hoon Na, she used to put so much white powder on her face to look good on screen but this year, she has come with a bronze look which makes her look even better. Even Rani's saris in Baabul have set a trend in India where the old-fashionned cutted long sleeves saris have come back in the Lakme Fashion Week last month. Celebrities are a style icon for people and a booming career supports that fact for Ash and Rani. - shez_15 —The preceding

Thanks for changing the name and for the nominations. You've done great. So I don't mind Colbert Report being there on Preity's page as long as it is not on Rani's. Btw, why would they mention Vivek? He's not popular. So thus, it is not an expression of popularity. Anyhow, see again, I only liked Ash's performance in Raincoat and HDDCS. I have yet to see Provoked. But there's not much talent in her other films. I have seen all of Preity Rani movies except Preity's Tollywood movies. But they're good. Definitely the representatives of the 2000's up till now. Who knows who else might emerge as more successful in the last three years of this decade. Thanks again. - Shez 15

I haven't seen it but I'm sure it was for Black since she was performing in black clothes.[2] She did the same thing on IIFA. Where there was snow from above, a scence re-enactment from Black. And there is a manipulation on the chart. After Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Actress comes first and then it's Best Actress. Someone must've liked Urmila and changed it. Again, why would Amitabh win and not Rani. So, the awards are held in 2006 or could be possible they did it in November. It just says for the year, 2005. I can look on it and then tell you. - Shez 15

I just checked. And from the sources where I got all her awards and from where I put it on wikipedia, they all say she won it for Black and Bunty Aur Babli. I didn't even know she won it for B&B too. [3][4] Plus, it also says she won Most Sensational Actress for Saathiya. which is considered less to the Critic's Award. But it's true, so don't change the facts. I remember watching that show. First, Rani won it for Most Sensational Actress, then Karisma for Shakti and then Ash for Devdas, and Ash wasn't there. The fact that the chart doesn't put Karisma on the list, proves it all how the website is made by some unprofessional who doesn't even has links to it. It's all bollywoodawards.com . Plz, tell me what you think? - shez_15

And don't delete nominations if you're not sure. Find references for most of them if you can. All of them are listed on freeweb.com but I don't want the same ref. for each one of them because it looks disorganized but you check on the above sites for the nominations you're not sure of. Here's IIFA's website but it only has winners' list. None for nominations. So silly. [5]

Also, can you help me change Mukherjee to Mukerji on every page on wikipedia. I did all her films. It's so tiring. I guess I 'll do whatever I can for now but where ever you see Mukherjee, just change it. It's the only way people will realize it is Mukerji. Thanks. And please oppose on Ash's discussion page. Her name is Bachchan now, not Rai. It if's a legal name change, there is no problem here. I don't know why they keep moving the page back to Rai.

I gave you all the references where Rani's awards are. [6][7] Look at them. I'm just looking for other sources for most of them so it doesn't look messy. But for now, don't delete nominations. It's so hard to find old nominations list for IIFA. Can you find sources for the ones there? Thanks. And for Ash, it doesn't matter if it's Bachchan. Cuz even when people write Rai, it gets redirected. So there's no problem there. Plus, Jaya Bachchan is on wikipedia, not Bhaduri. And it's a legal name change and as per wikipedia, that is the norm. For KANK, I never put Rani's name b4 SRK. I just put it as actor, actress, supporting actor and supporting actress. And even for KBC, SRK said Rani and Preity like everytime. He called Rani later to give more importance and surprise. Whtever, I don't mind how you put it. It doesn't change the fact Rani is No.1. And for Raja Ki Ayegi Barat, even on imdb, the lead cast is way below. So the casting doesn't matter because no one knows Shadab Khan. As for the awards, it's Most Sensational. I saw it with my eyes. I told you the chart is wrong. Thus, the award for Black went to Rani but whatever, she has so many, it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that with the wrong references, we're manipulating facts. She won Most Sensational and she won it for Black and Bunty Aur Babli. Check those references I gave you. I'm not changing anymore until you realize. I hope you change it yourself. Thanks. - shez_15

I added references to Rani's awards. I'll add the rest some other day. And you added a nomination for Veer-Zaara for Preity for GIFA Awards. But there were none held in 2004. So don't make it up. I deleted it. And when I was looking for references to put on Rani's awards page from Preity's, I found out that you used one reference for all the ones in Other Awards. That's okay but when I checked the ref, it was copied out from wikipedia. And you know that's not a reference. So don't put references just for the heck of it, they need to be valid. Now, I trust you that she did win all those awards. So, I'm not going to ask you to find references for all those awards but if you can find some, that's okay but not needed. I trust you. And reference 39 didn't work. Either find a new one or it's again okay not to put one. That's all.

Hello. Thanks for the welcome back message. Yes exams are finished but still got some assignment work to do. I guess you have been busy with Mukerji's page. Personally I still hate the page but Im not gonna edit until I find out properly what you and Shez15 have been doing. I noticed Shez15 has changed the cast order again! If he carries on, Im gonna have to ask for some admin help or soem opinions from

Hi. Don't worry about the removal of my messages, just add them back on and ignore it. Yes I've seen most of the film you mentioned except for

Chak De India looks good. Madhuri Dixit is my all time favourite actress. She is the best actress Bollywood has ever created. Like yourself, I have grown up watching Bollywood movies and Madhuri was always at the top of my list. A lot of good films are out this year, Bollywood and Hollywood alike. I saw Spider-Man 3 yesterday which was brilliant. I saw on Boxofficeindia.com that it has had the biggest opening for a Hollywood film in India. I have not see Ta Ra Rum Pum because honestly the film does not really appeal to me. I liked Hum Tum but this film does not really look interesting although I heard the reviews have been good. Shilpa Shetty definently got a career boost with CBB, I watched the programme everyday and once I saw that Jade Goody had left, it was obvious that Shetty would be the one to benefit. As for Preity Zinta, yes she has grown from strength to strength and will go down as one of the best Bollywood has seen. For the sections you told me about, well I think we can remove the Colbert Report because Zinta, Khan and Bachchan are probably mentioned in loads of skits and shows so there's not really any need for it. As for the popularity thing, Im not sure because people know she's popular but it may be necessary to mention her popularity in other places. I'd probably change the name of the section - something else like In The Media or something like that. Im not really sure, what did User:xC say about this section and what do you feel about this section? -- Pa7 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the compliment on the template, I think I might add Yash Chopra's directorial filmography to it but Im not sure. Yes I saw what you did for the In The Media section. It looks ok, but I'd try not to add more to that unless it is totally reliable. Other than that it looks good. In answering your last question regarding the awards page, yes the awards look really organized and better. I needed to ask whether it is possible to change the sub headings on Zinta's page to 1998-2000 or 2000-present because many people differ in what they saw as her breakthrough and prior success. Tell me what you think? Best regards. -- Pa7 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about these sub-headings:

• 1998-2002; Early career
• 2002-2004; Success
• 2005-present

What do you think? -- Pa7 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that by putting a word for each section is neccessary. Everybody knows she is successful as indicated by the intro so there is not really any need to emphasize it. That's what I think personally, but if you've got any other suggestions then please share. -- Pa7 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You know what, Im fine with the sub-headings. I know you told me to reply on the discussion page but Im kinda in a rush. I probably won't be working on that article for some time, unless it is totally neccessary. Im going on holiday next week. It's just for the weekend but it's my get-away from home. Also BTW, I think you should remove the brand ambassador stuff because that is advertising and it is not usually accepted on wikipedia. Best regards. :-) -- Pa7 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!! Thanks, I'll get over my jealousy of Rani Mukerji soon enough!!! It's funny because he acts as if I know her personally, when really I don't give a damn. Never mind he can say what he wants. I guess Shez and I have never seen eye-to-eye. Whatever, I don't care! Im going to Madrid next week so I'll still be editing for a few more days. What are you working on now? I want to expand Madhuri Dixit's and Tabu's pages. It's a shame because they are two of the best actresses in the industry and there is not much on them :-( Bye for now. -- Pa7 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't talk about other editors on your page or to anyone else. That's why I was mad when pa_7 was talking about me on your page. She still is. But I don't want to talk about her or talk to her. In my opinion, she just has a problem with Rani since the beginning but she still keeps on butting in when she hates the actress. Why would someone write on her page or keep interest in her when the only thing she knows is to remove every important fact. Anyhow, you're doing great. Although the brand ambassador stuff is never accepted on wikipedia. I put it for Rani but it was removed. So it's better to remove it before someone else removes it. I'm just busy. My graduation is on Thursday. I have no time at all. So I'll talk to you later. Just keep up up the good work. - shez_15

You had polls in the media section and also on the awards page. It's better to keep them in one place and the awards page is all about accomplishments. And as for the media section, it's better to put some important public appearance which was important. If you have any other ideas for it. Do tell me. Best regards. shez_15

Ok I understand but tell Xc that. She removed Rani's polls. By the way, the dimples make no sense in the media section. What's the co relation?

Hello, got your message. I'll have a skim through the page tonight, I had a quick read right now. I think the page needs a bit of organizing and LOTS of referencing. Thanks for the heads up. -- Pa7 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you keen on deleting Rani's press coverages. They've been on the page for more than two years. Preity's press coverages didn't make sense. They were not press coverages. Whereas Rani's are in format to her career graph. There is a time-line to it. And even if Xc deleted it there, why are you after Rani's page whenever you get the chance? You say you like her than why do you delete things from her page? Preity and Rani may be competing in real life but this is wikipedia, their articles are not competing with each other. Stop making them alike. Just because Rani has something on her page doesn't mean Preity needs to. And there are some things on Preity's page which I never copy from or delete just because they're not on Rani's. Plz stop this nuisance. So what are you working on now? I have my graduation tomorrow. So I won't be any help for the next few days. So busy. - shez_15

There's nothing wrong with putting K3G. It's a 20 mins role with two songs of hers just like Preity in Dil Se. If that movie is put in Zinta's filmography then so should K3G. A film like Kal Ho Naa Ho wouldn't be credited to Rani since it was 20 secs. But a 20 mins role makes it a part of the movie. Don't deny that. So it's 7 to 7. She has no 8 hits. If you go on her filmography which lists her top grossers in an order and it goes till 7. Her 8th grosser is Jaaneman which is not a hit. So, it's 7. But anyway keep it there. I don't really care. Don't delete Rani's intro. Plz. The only reason why I removed Preity's songs in item numbers is simply because they are not item numbers. An item number is where you dance in skimpy clothes to attract audiences into the theatres. It's a fast song but that doesn't mean every fast and popular song be put in the item number list. Bumbro may be popular but it's not an item number. Preity is not an item girl. And if you want to degrade her status to an item number then I don't mind. An item number by definition is when the actress shows some cleavage and dances to some extent in an arousing way for India's truck drivers and everybody. So those kind of people come to the theatre to watch the movie. But in Bumbro, Preity was covered from head to toe. Plus, she was part of the movie not an item girl. - shez_15

I also think you are user:84.229.101.137 who keeps putting Preity in the Bollywood article and also keeps putting Rani after Preity in the HDJPK article. Anyway, do what you want as long as you don't put anything false. I made the article item number and I know very well what's an item number. It's the weirdest thing to hear Bumbro as an item number or Jiya Jale which is a melodious song. Well if you want Preity in the Bollywood article, then I'll put her there. It's fine by me as long as you don't put her as popular in places where she's not like in China. Just stop this absurdity. Find me references and I'll believe you. Best regards. - shez_15

I didn't want to fight you. And I'm still not. I'm just arguing with you because your edits on Rani's page don't make sense. You're the one who's going out of hands. I never put anything like stupid on Preity's page first of all. And the Commonwealth games were seen by millions of people. Salaam Namaste cannot even beat that. And it's only after that performance with Rani that Saif got coined. I also think it's stupid to put one name as this is the most popular person because you never know. You're telling me just because you travelled to a country and you heard her name by two or three people, you think she is the most popular actress abroad. That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Filmfare poll is like a Forbes poll and if it can be mentionned on Julia Roberts page, I don't see no harm on Rani's page. It was there before when the polls section was on the awards page. And it's okay to have repetition because the intro summarizes the page. Just like she has won six awards in the intro, it is stated in her infobox. There's repetition again. You didn't delete that. But you want to delete her success fact. Why? Now I haven't deleted Preity's fact about having the most hits even though it's not true. Why do you get so offensive on Rani's page. I know all other actresses are on that list but Rani is at the most top of all current actresses along with Kajol. Don't need to get angry over one fact. And I'll check the Namesake fact, I thought it was Hollywood since it's Mira Nair. But I'll check on that. Calm down now. Thank god you think Bumbro is not an item number. And I won't interfere on Bollywood's page. But I was shocked to see Preity's name everywhere when we all know Ash is the most popular when it comes to any country abroad. And Xc said not to put approximations or compare to any actress when it comes to salary but you can always put an amount if you have a fact that she was paid this much for this particular movie like on Hollywood actors' articles. I'm not saying she is the highest paid or even that she is one of the highest paid. It's just stating a fact on one particular pay. And as for press coverage. I didn't want to put that gift in the career section so I put in press coverage. And it is. It's an IANS interview which is copy pasted on various websites. I just liked glamsham because it had photos in it which makes it interesting. Thanks. -shez_15

Hey. Namesake was distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures.[8] Isn't that Hollywood? I'll wait for your reply. Then it's a cross-over film? There's Kal Penn in it. Ah found it. Here's a ref. for it. [9]

At the end of the interview, they ask Rani if she's doing any Hollywood film. She says no but I was offered Namesake, meaning it is a Hollywood film. Even in Mira Nair's KWK interview, she says I don't know why people think my films are Bollywood films just because she casts Indian people in them and promotes Bollywood songs. - shez_15

Am I deleting the fact on Preity's highest number of grossing films? No. Even though, Rani and Preity have the same number. But why are you getting so offensive on Rani's page? Look, all I wrote is her pay for one particular movie, without comparing it to any other actress or without writing her off as the highest paid or even one of the highest paid, which is true. But I don't know why you keep reverting? The references you have are approximations as per the amount charged per film which is wrong to conclude because you can never know the exact changes in salary from film to film. Nothing is being said about Preity. Why do you take it so personally? For instance, I'm writing Mira Nair's film, you would erase that. Then you would erase the Hollywood film tag just because Preity's page doesn't say Hollywood. Just stop comparing the two actresses for once and let their own achievements speak for them instead having to cut Rani's Morroco fact. You're getting way too offensive on her page. I took your changes into considerations but I don't agree with most of them. For example, lenses? Why are you removing what preparation the actor is going through to come into his/her character? And the top heroines fact is that Rani and Kajol are the only current actresses on the top most part of that list. So, yes, every actress is compared on the chart, which is good. But we want to write off the top current ones as the major comparisons to the legendary actresses. I think you're over-stressing. Just let it be for now. And whatever changes you do want, talk them on the talk page first and I'll have other editors take on it. I even talked to Xc and let's see what the reply is. Whatever I put on Rani's page, don't take it as an offence to Preity's. There's nothing wrong with stating the facts. Just relax. - shez_15

The page finally looks great. Xc did a great job! And I think our misunderstandings have been resolved. Except that the pay was removed but I'll add it back. And I think Mira Nair or no, it's trivial. It's only a name. It doesn't take the whole page for space. Anyhow, the fact about her in the top heroines of all-time. I just wanna use that reference. It's got nothing to do with Amrita Arora or other small-time actresses. It's just to show her impact as she is on the top of the current actresses among the legendary ones. Maybe you can word it differently. Just see it. And I don't care about the lenses, it's on the Black article, so unneeded. And it was to cover up her beautiful eyes because the character wasn't supposed to be glamourous. And what else? There's repetition everywhere on her page. Her Filmfare awards are on the page as well, discussed in the career section. So it's okay to put that fact there even though it's on the awards page. Because not everyone reads the awards page. Plus, it's a rare achievement. I don't think any foreign audience with such a large number be willing to watch four movies of someone. It's huge. And no need to keep Sabyassachi. I just thought Rani promotes him a lot as she wanted him for Black, Baabul and now her new movie, LCMD. They're good friends. But who cares? Maybe we should just make a page for the guy and state that fact over there. Because I know he just started and he might be the next Manish Malhotra. I'm glad we're okay now. Please no more arguments or fights. I'm just busy with school stuff otherwise I would help you with other articles. Maybe at the end end of June. You're doing a good job. Keep it up. - shez_15

Rani Mukerji has undergone some recent removals of content. You might want to have a look. xC | ☎ 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Shaad want to cast her when Rani did an amazing job in Saathiya? Plus, I know at the time whatever came on news channel. And to my knowledge, Rani Mukerji and Hrithik were supposed to be casted in the film. Rani accepted the offer. And then in an interview, she said I've just signed Shaad's film and we're waiting for Hrithik to accept the offer. I hope to work with him again after MDK. Our chemistry is great on-screen. Let's hope he takes the offer. I remember this word for word or almost. And as per you imagining Preity to be thought of in the role doesn't even make sense. She only did a complete Indian look for Veer-Zaara. She could never pull off the role in those clothes. Anyway, if you have a reference besides imdb, I'd be willing to let it be on the page. I didn't even know imdb was a user site until a week ago. And as per, 4 crore, I even heard that on Headline News. But for all I know, you could've put that Preity rejected the offer. And again, why would she turn down the offer as said in your trivia? Look over Preity's website, and if she was offered that role, it would've been made public in some article if it is true. Otherwise, how would people even know she was offered which she was not. - shez_15

Well put, Shshshsh. I am just as shocked as you are. I agree with some of the removals, no doubt, such as fashion details and all that. But I have no words for the way he's slashed at the content. What worries me is that first it is Mukerji, next could be Zinta, Roshan, any of the Khans. Why, lok at the Sanjay Dutt page, its a bit of a mess. But rather than helping improve the content, he's just trashing it... I wonder how much of it he'd throw out.

What puzzles me is that FA class articles seem to have a different set of rules, while Bollywood bios seem to have some other rules. I have given concrete examples, but he simply ignores them.

From whatever I have seen on Shez 15's and his talk page, they have had problems in the past. But I don't see why he should do this to an article to hit back at an editor.

Why, even the two of us have had our differences. Me and you, Shshshsh, we've fought more on those talk pages than anyone else. But its always to improve the article, and I respect you as an editor. Same goes for Shez. This chap on the other hand, is simply throwing out content without any suggestions how to improve it.

I have certain family problems to deal with. I'm not saying this asking for sympathy, but just to explain that I probably won't be able to spend that much time on WP as I could have earlier. I hope you could save some content from these pages. Wish you all the best,

Regards,xC | ☎ 07:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue over petty issues. So, whatever. Keep the trivia despite what I believe which is that's not true because I was following every interview at the time Bunty Aur Babli was in pre-production. And I never heard Preity's name concerning the film. I'll just say keep the fact. Keep working hard. Ttyl. shez_15

you're busy but you have the time to make other things.--Shshshsh 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shahid, how you been? Looks like you have been busy, I had a quick look at the Rani Mukerji page and saw what happened. I have corresponded with User:Haphar on several occassions last year. He helped me out on one of the Bollywood pages. I agree with some of the edits he made but not all of them. I will talk to him later. Just to let you know, I won't be editing on wikipedia for some time. After I got back from holiday I was hospitalized. Im going through surgury next month, so I'll be away for some time. I won't comment on the Mukerji issue today, I'll probably do it tomorrow. There a few pages I want to sort out for now. I think you asked whether The Namesake was a Hollywood film. I've always thought it was but it looks like that issue has been sorted. Best regards. -- Pa7 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

How've you been?

I've found that a lot of the things that so many editors discuss again and again is due to the simple reason we don't have a clear set of policies and/or guidelines related to filmbios.

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject. However heres a page of some of the problems I've come across - User:Xcentaur/Sandbox2. I'd appreciate your comments on its talk page and any suggestions how to get the community to discuss this further.

Thanks,xC | ☎ 13:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you requested I have not totally cut down the stuff about Zinta's gossip and controversies. I've done a few bits of editing. I understand that you worked really hard on it but Wikipedia does promote actors and we do not speculate about who hates them and who accuses them of stuff. The alleged affair stuff really needs to be cut down because it's pure gossip and this is an encyclopedia. Im also going to change the intro because critically acclaimed performances can be maninstream cinema eg Rani Mukerji in Black. Im just letting you know. Best regards. -- Pa7 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my input regarding the Mukerji article on the discussion page, please have a look and add your opinions. Best regards. -- Pa7 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Im fine, thank you for asking and also thanks for the lovely message regarding the surgery. Regarding the polls section on Mukerji's page, I really do not know what to do with them. Personally I think it would be better to put it in the awards and nominations pages because polls are trivial. I really don't know, will have to get some more opinions on this. Best regards. -- Pa7 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! A new record for IIFA History. So thanks for your help on Rani Mukerji's page. Where's Haphar now? Why isn't he editing since it's because of him we were in an edit war? - shez_15

Sorry, I just had to revert everything to Xc's version because Haphar had removed most references whereas your version contained those statements, except not having the refs. So, please edit again. Thanks. - shez_15

Hey there,

Thanks for adding your notes to the talk page on that sandbox!

xC | ☎ 10:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome:) --Shshshsh 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, why do you keep removing Rani Mukerji's name from Popularity in Asia when you do know she is the most successful and one of the most popular. There are no particular names of Preity Zinta or Madhuri Dixit mentionned in the references, but I've let you keep that statement. Just don't remove Rani's name. Thanks. - shez_15

What is your problem now? Look I respect you but I don't agree with your edits. Why would you remove Rani's name from the Bollywood article? I don't get it. Are you trying to demote her? You do know she is one of the most popular Bollywood personalities today. Plus, the reference doesn't mention any names for the statement. However, there is another ref. in the prior sentence which does. But why don't we add Ajay Devgan and other names as well? And why have you added AB. He's not mentionned anywhere. So why not Rani? Again, the ref. is for 2005. We are in 2007 and popularity changes in a small gap of time. I know I changed my preference of Urmila Matondkar in 2003 to Rani Mukerji in 2004. Thus, the top names should be mentionned. In KANK, I was just on the IMDB page and I was going from a link of Rani to Preity's to see any new films on hand and I went throught the page of KANK and saw the casting has been changed since she was the supporting actress and I guess Abhishek won a lot of accolades for his role. So please don't change the casting since we are trying to follow a simple code of conduct. IMDB is the official way how we cast people on wikipedia. Although I think it should be how the film does it but all editors agreed to IMDB. And as for picturization, even pa_7 put SRK and Rani in Rock N Roll. Because picturization means who was shown in the video amongst the lead cast. When you see the video, you see them. Thus, there names are there to cite facts. I agree I'll discuss the changes on Rani's discussion. Thanks. - shez_15

Why? I don't get it. Anyhow, I don't care about the picturization but I do care about casting as it should be done in a standard format way. Of course, there are hundreds of articles which are not put as per IMDB but when I do know if something is not done as per imdb, i do change it. In this case, I didn't know about B&B and Yuva. So I'll change it. In fact, I'll go through all of Rani's films and put the cast as per imdb. So there is no further problem. End of discussion. Following the film casting is the ideal way since it puts the end to the argument. The actors are fine with it. So, should we. And as for KANK, why should Preity be b4 Abhishek when AB Jr. won more accolades than her and when he is the supporting actor, which goes before the supporting actress? Anyhow, for now I'll put everything to IMDB. Whatever I can find. Thanks for the update. - shez_15

They told me IMDB when I told them it wasn't right. The only solution is taking it from the film. I have a lot of DVD's and can go through them. And it's only for the lead cast. Plus, it's the only official way. But for now, I'll do IMDB. - shez_15

Ok fine you're not mean. But be helpful here. Don't change cast until we decide on something. And why not films? It's the most suitable but it's something out of reach. But I'm sure popular films can be easily listed. As for now, just go as per imdb to avoid complications. Thanks. - shez_15

I know. But for now, Kareena is gonna go before Rani as per the rule. - shez_15

Oh Veer-Zaara's casting has been changed too. I don't know now. You better ask them to find a rule. Because I'm tired of switching from one way to another. For now, I'm just putting all of Rani's movies as per imdb and you should do Preity's. And of course, we won't agree on how the casting is done on some of them and then we can ask for a new alternative. - shez_15

You're funny sometimes. Why would it cause a war? I'm just following wikipedia rules. And there will be no edit fight until someone changes the rule. For now, let's just leave everything as it is. For Rani's films, I've put them as per imdb. I hate the fact she's casted under Kareena and Vivek whereas in the movie, she's listed before them. So, it is unfair. But I'm gonna leave my personal differences aside, and follow rules. If the rule changes, we'll put an edit war then. - shez_15

Veer-Zeera and crediting. I think we should always credit in the same order as the film itself does it. I don't have a copy of the film but if it puts Rani first then we should too because it is likely original research (although not a huge deal) to re-order the lists to fit what we believe represents the most important actors in a film. If we do that it opens the door to fanboys saying "well I think Farida Jalal was more important than Salman Khan in KKHH" and someone else arguing for Johnny Lever being the most important supporting actor. If film makers use seniority credits then there is no reason we shouldn't. There is no way we can standardize credits without getting into arguments about it. I'll also post something to the Veer-Zaara talk page. gren グレン 18:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm arguing the opposite of what I did on that talk page. The DVD cover says SRK, Preity & Rani. Which seems to put Rani third, but the credits apparently have it the other way. gren グレン 18:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know Zora and respect her opinion... and I really don't disagree with you. We are not here to respect seniority. The issue is, I prefer not to have editors judge which actors are more important in a movie. In the case of Veer-Zaara it's obvious, but in other cases it may not be obvious and I can see situations where we get into edit wars about "who is more important in Waqt (1965 film)? How should we credit them? By using an official cast-listing you are not choosing seniority over importance in the film since not all cast listings are chosen by seniority--what you are getting is a clear answer that avoids edit wars. I understand it can be difficult to access cast lists since IMDb is not necessarily correct, but, on the rare occasion that there is an argument I am sure that some editor can find a copy of the film and watch the order and tell us. I understand what you're saying and my personal preference is for most important in the film but I am not making policy based on this one article. I am trying to make a policy which will avoid edit wars on other articles where most important is not always clear. But, since I am not involved in changing the cast ordering you can more or less ignore me if you want. gren グレン 09:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you all PLEASE stop trying to change the synopsis on the Veer Zaara page. I am sick and tired of having to fix it each and every time I come online. No offense, but your version of the movie synopsis is STUPID! It gives away all of the important key scenes and totally RUINS the whole plot for everyone who has not yet seen this GREAT movie.

Now my version of the synopsis comes from the OFFICIAL Veer-Zaara page on the Yash-Raj Films website. It is a authentic synopsis that leaves elements of surprise for any readers who have yet to see this movie.

PLEASE do NOT change the synopsis again! Everytime you change it, I'll just keep fixing it, because your version is a horrible synopsis and ruins a good movie for anyone still planning on seeing it.(Benbrattlover 19:38, 29 June 2007)

How many times must I explain this to you. My synopsis of Veer Zaara is NOT copyrighted. It is only BASED on the official synopsis. It is NOT copied from the official synopsis. So it is NOT copyrighted. I wrote almost all of it myself. So STOP deleting it and reverting to your STUPID version! I am getting sick and tired of coming to this site each day to see my work undone each time. STOP changing it! My synopsis is NOT copyrighted, even if I did copy the official synopsis, word-for-word, which I didn't. I wrote the synopsis based on the official version, but I wrote it myself. So STOP changing it!

(Benbrattlover 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For the LOVE of GOD, STOP changing the Veer Zaara synopsis! No, I am not happy with your latest edit, because it STILL gives away the entire plot of the movie, and RUINS it for those who haven't seen it yet! THAT is THE POINT! My synopsis KEEPS the element of surprise for those wanting to get info about the movie without destroying the entire plot, like you keep doing!

PLEASE STOP changing the Veer Zaara synopsis!

(75.46.13.248 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've added my opinions on the issues, I just feel that there is no point in discussing especially when everything that was removed is slowly added back into the article. Please have a look. Thank you. -- Pa7 16:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not try to put bad reviews. I watched the movie and I personally didn't like it and when I read the review, I thought I had the same opinion, so it must be okay to help around. So, I put it there. I didn't mean to offend. If you remove it, it's fine. But you should see the movie for yourself. Amitabh Bachchan is totally wasted. But I'm just concerned to make a rule as to which critic is a good one and not just writing rubbish to gain momentum. I think this is a valid point to be discussed. Don't you? - shez_15

Hi, I watched Jhoom Barabar Jhoom today. Have you watched it yet? I actually liked it, but it could've done with some trimming down. AB Jr and Preity Zinta make such a cute couple, I hope they do more films together. I've totally fallen in love with the song "Bol Na Halke Halke", it's so beautiful. The choreography was amazing in the film, and the music was brilliant. I think Amitabh Bachchan was wasted and definently not needed. I love the part when Alvira and Laila are swearing at each other in Hindi. Apparently the film has not been doing well in India, but that's what happened to TRRP - bad start but good finish. Tell me what you thought of the film? Favourite scenes, actors etc, best regards. -- Pa7 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are finally not arguing as we have been for the last past weeks. I like it this way. And sorry if I wrote that to gren but I thought you were doing it to favour her since you put leading for SRK, supporting for Rani and leading for Preity which just made it look so unorganized and stupid. Anyway, I don't know how the casting will go but my suggestion is we keep with IMDB for the most part and for films like Karan Arjun, etc, we should find the film casting. I think the film casting is the only official way of putting it all together with no biases attached but that of the film maker himself. But one thing is clear, the film maker is not stupid enough to put Divya Dutta above SRK in Veer-Zaara. So, at the end of the day, he/she knows how fair he has to be. But whatever, the case might be, it's best to stick to this for whatever movies we can find on the internet so as to have a proof on a talk-page, in my opinion. And for your removal on Bollywood page, plz read the whole ref., it clearly says:

"When he introduced me to his counterpart from across the border, Mr Singh insisted that I be invited to Pakistan. They (The Pakistani dignitaries) said they'd love to have me in their country any time I want. And I'd love to go! President Musharraf and all the other delegates said I'm very popular in Pakistan."

And as for JBJ, I was thinking it was going to be the best movie of the year and that's why I went on the opening night but I just didn't like it. Although, I must admit the songs are incredible. Lara Dutta was amazing. Her French accent was top-notch. I speak French, so I know when it's fake or good. It was well picked up by her. And the house was full when I went, so I don't know why the movie's not doing well. There were people from all age groups. Maybe it will find its way, who knows? I can't wait for Chak De India, it was such a funny preview. - shez_15

Bips_basu seems to be an aggressive user. Plz watch her or him. The user seems to dislike Preity Zinta and Akshay Kumar from what I've seen with his edits on Dhadkan and Preity's page. What can we do with this user? - shez_15

Hey there

I saw your warnings on this user's talk page while on RC patrol. Although it seems a small number of the user's edits are constructive, the rest are clearly bad faith. The next time the user disrupts any of the pages, don't bother giving informal warnings, report it straight to WP:AIV. Just thought I'd drop by with a bit of friendly advice cuz I get the feeling this user's vandalistic edits aren't a one-time thing.

Great work watching those pages, happy editing!xC | ☎ 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the film credits, I'm afraid I disagree with you. I've run Google ragged looking for a reliable source of film credits/cast listing which everyone would agree with, but I've got nothing. IMDB diluted its credibility by opening its doors to the public.

Some interesting suggestions I've got while discussing this were to sort names on the basis of-

• Alphabetical order
• Screen time
• Importance of role
• Seniority (ie. years in the industry)
• Independent sites eg.IMDB,Yahoo,etc

Here's the problem. Screen time by itself does not say much about the importance of the role. Importance of the role by itself is subjective because everyone feels differently about how a role ties in with the rest of the script. Lastly, seniority can also be misleading. For example, an actor with a phenomenal debut could recieve greater acclaim in the same movie rather than an established actor who gave a mediocre performance.

With independent sites, the issue is simple - quality control. IMDB has dropped its standards nowadays. No other site is even close to being as comprehensive. It is extremely difficult to rely on any one site, and the fact remains even that site could have made a mistake. Then what?

For the main cast, I support listing by alphabetical order. Supporting cast, unless they have a notable role/plot requirement, shouldn't even be noted in the article since they are not all that important anyhow. The main cast rarely exceeds a dozen, even in the most extravagant films. Those names can be easily sorted alphabetically.

Of course, if you have any other views or suggestions about this, do drop a line on my talk page. Regards,xC | ☎ 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the film even though it got bad reviews, it's a true masala flick. I saw the promo for

Great! I need to format the 2000s films in to the tables -but much of the work needs doing on the tamil film and other -I don't know if your interest lies outside Bollywood or not. I created the layout of much of the lists which I am compiling by country (I'm at present doing American film!!) The lists when completely full will be highly encyclopedic resources for Indian film - I guess as you say there are many films missing. Keep up the good work on Indian films anyway and any work you can do will be more than appeciated ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would change CCCC and KANK if you were logged on. So you admit. Btw, they were changed too. So were you the one who was attacking Rani's IMDB page. That's really sad if it's true but I have no proof so I won't argue. I'm still saying we should keep IMDB for most films as it is the largest and the site already used for every film on wikipedia but for movies which have official references for casting, they should be placed in that order since they are official. And I'm saying I can find more refs. for more official casting once I have a get-go. Till then, I'm just going to go along with IMDB for now. Thanks for your time. - shez_15

Can you all PLEASE stop trying to change the synopsis on the Veer Zaara page. I am sick and tired of having to fix it each and every time I come online. No offense, but your version of the movie synopsis is STUPID! It gives away all of the important key scenes and totally RUINS the whole plot for everyone who has not yet seen this GREAT movie.

Now my version of the synopsis comes from the OFFICIAL Veer-Zaara page on the Yash-Raj Films website. It is a authentic synopsis that leaves elements of surprise for any readers who have yet to see this movie.

PLEASE do NOT change the synopsis again! Everytime you change it, I'll just keep fixing it, because your version is a horrible synopsis and ruins a good movie for anyone still planning on seeing it.(Benbrattlover 19:29, 29 June 2007)

Once again, PLEASE STOP changing the Veer Zaara synopsis to your STUPID version! Your version is just HORRIBLE. If someone read that, wanting to find out a little about the movie before watching it, your synopsis would TOTALLY RUIN it for them, and they'd never want to see it!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?? Don't you have any consideration for people who might want to see this movie??

PLEASE STOP changing it to versions that destroy the entire plot and surprises of the movie. You're wasting your time changing it, because each time you do, I will keep on fixing it so that those people who are waiting to see it, don't have the entire story ruined by reading your terrible synopsis. (Benbrattlover 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

For the LOVE of GOD, STOP changing the Veer Zaara synopsis! No, I am not happy with your latest edit, because it STILL gives away the entire plot of the movie, and RUINS it for those who haven't seen it yet! THAT is THE POINT! My synopsis KEEPS the element of surprise for those wanting to get info about the movie without destroying the entire plot, like you keep doing!

PLEASE STOP changing the Veer Zaara synopsis!

(75.46.13.248 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

RE: This edit

Wow, exactly what I was going to remove! Lightening speed, keep at it ;) xC | ☎ 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks xC!:), --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm tired of arguing over petty issues. But if history were to be checked, Rani always came before Preity in all their movies together. Anyhow, I'm just saying we should keep the IMDB format since it's the one used for every movie. We can't go and change all the cast lists of all movies and check them over and over again. And for movies which have official casting from the movie, those articles are lucky. And stop removing Chori Chori from Rani's career page. It might not be an important movie but it was an important role. And for that, we need to mention it for the actor's sake. Thank you. And let's stop fighting. Rather focus on wikipedia articles. - shez_15

Hi Shshshsh. Unfortuntately despite me being the creator of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers even I don;t have the authority to edit the contours of the actor template -it is extremely well protected. I'll ask an admin to add it. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 08:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done -I've requested it. I've noticed some unpleasant comment son your talk page. Always report personal attacks to admin. Sometimes I wish I had accepted adminship but I declined it as I didn;t want to be too occupied. People should never tell you in such a way how to edit I suggest you report Benbrattlover to User:Punkmorten or somebody. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just avoiding what I'm saying. Actors may be listed in order of appearances in some films but as you know, in HDJPK, CCCC, V-Z and KANK, the actors were listed as per the film maker's choice and for that, we should respect their decision of however they might put them. And I still think IMDB should be kept for the purpose of its history. But for new movies, maybe we can find a new source. Just an idea. And as for CC, the movie may not have done well at the box office or it may be critically panned but Rani's performance was praised. [10][11] [12] Please do your research first. Her performance was praised. "Rani is exuberant". "Chori Chori is a Rani Mukerji film all the way. The actress pumps life into the gregarious Khushi without making her too boisterous. Her hilarious take off on Bollywood's actors is one of the best moments in the film. Rani flows with the script as she smoothly reveals the happy, vulnerable and emotional facets of her character." Plus, only one sentence for the year 2003 doesn't seem fit. And for that, we need to put it in the article. - shez_15