Talk:Divya Bharti/Archive 1

Untitled
hi This entire article is written in very poor English and does not make sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.82.252 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you to take quick look at the article again with cool head.It has been developed by keeping English grammar in mind.you can also help to develop a page.thnks and happy editing.Rpaigu (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File Replacement
Please do not file with any other file again and again. All the users are requested to keep neutrality policy of wikipedia.thanking you.happy editingRavishankar (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable and fake sources
I didnt go through all but these sources needed to be replaced with REAL sources. Not FAKE ones. AND MANY MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Goshhh!!! This is a horribly written article. It uses many fake sources. The sources that don't claim anything about the subject. They are used just to fillup to look like information is sourced. I am giving regular editors one day to correct this article or else i am reverting it to this version. And GA? NO! Its not even a C-class article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://divyabharti.tumblr.com/biography
 * http://inextlive.jagran.com/3-wonderful-years-ended-tragically-201204050009
 * http://qna.rediff.com/questions-and-answers/divya-bharti-keise-mari/21138198/answers/21138246
 * http://books.google.no/books?id=fAfOygAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
 * http://books.google.no/books?id=iyCOxf1_UWAC&redir_esc=y
 * agree this is indeed very disturbing. Except this one source which is not very reliable all other are Junk sources. Do you know who added these source ? -- D Big X ray   20:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This guy User:Dindriyena added all these sources and rewrote this article. It needs improving desperately but sources are hard to find. There are only a handful of sources not all are reliable.Shakirfan (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed all that crap and restored the article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Official website Or Fan site
Hello,, I noticed you added  as an external link. I'm under impression that it should not be there because it is one of those links normally to be avoided (#11). It would set a wrong precedent in my opinion, anybody can make a fan site and ask it to be added here. I Googled for a while but could not find any meaningful related to this Fan Site. It'd be helpful you could answer why it should be there. Thanks. Anup  [Talk]  10:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Just noticed it's you who also add "her official website" (Earlier site owner/manager did so. They also spammed this link at many other places as "official" -,, ). What makes it "official"? Website itself was registered in 2010 (Bharti died in 1993). If it indeed was her official website, I expect a reliable source saying so.  Anup   [Talk]  10:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Owner of website seems to call it a "generous" act that he runs this portal . I'm pretty much sure that it is a fake official site. Some fan made a website, called it official and spammed (..spamming -, ) it all over internet. I cannot find a single reliable source that mentions even once this alleged official site. Anup   [Talk]  13:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message.It is listed in IMDB as her Official site, in her main  facebook page here  and this site claims to be to her official website hence added it.It is the most  comprehensive site about her.Now in first glance it does not appear to be violate WP:EL hence added it. But I do not know owns the external site .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is the thing - the website itself claims it to be her official website (surprisingly despite being a very well know face in Bollywood - no reliable sources or even gossip one mention this site). Facebook unverified page Id: "fb.divyabhartiportal" suggests that a single person owns both pages, so it is obvious they would link back each other. IMDb - we know how it works. At very first sight, I agree, it appears okay.. but on close analysis it is yet another fansite ("It's is site run by a team from different nationality and nation" - Owner of site in his message below to this post). To be honest, I'm tempted to remove it for it clearly falls under WP:ELNO and WP:SOAP. Would you object to this move? Anup   [Talk]  17:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I leave it to you and others in this discussion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I removed it. Anup   [Talk]  19:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Divya Bharti Portal Is listed official in IMDB
There is nothing wrong to have Divya Bharti Portal as official site on the wiki as MARILYN MONROE TOO HAS THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE INCLUSIVE IN WIKI. If they remain. We shall remain too. No one to the date poses the information about Divya then we do. You will find DBP has been inclusive in the wiki since 2010 and few times like this... the awkward reactions come to overtake it. It's is site run by a team from different nationality and nation. DBP solely is about divya bharti and you don't even find a name of a fan beyond Divya Bharti.

IMDB too enlists DBP as official site.

Could you take the the Marilyn monroe website before taking us down.PLEASE!

We don't have days and days to work and spend our time in wiki. Don't have so much time to argue. But we will time and again work on this page. And also if u guys are smart and intelligent we wouldn't think you would have spent so much of time for it (divya page)... you would have better used it for something else, some where else (for something good than just debate with us) THINK!!!

- dbp(admin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.250.98 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDb is NOT a reliable source. For other articles, see WP:OSE. You need to find and submit here a reliable source (newspaper, magazines, books, journals, etc.) that says this site is her official website. Anup   [Talk]  16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE
Please don't delete the current image of Divya Bharti because it is the correct image as it provides correct license and copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood junction (talk • contribs) 06:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected
I have full-protected the article as there appears to be an edit-war between and some IPs. I will support the removal of any contentious content that is not supported by a reliable source, including most of the "Death and aftermath" (obviously we have to say something, but extraneous detail needs a good quality source), but some of the reverts included good faith copyedits which I don't have any strong opinion over. Please discuss here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm open to discuss the matter. It's just WP:V & WP:OR, I've an issue with. I do not contest copyedit changes. Involved IP editor has earlier been earlusing account and now dynamic IP address. They've also earlier revealed their identity as owner/manager of   (we can see where the contents are coming from).


 * In my personal opinion, full-protection is a bit uncalled for. No hard feelings, I just wanted those unsourced/OR stuffs to go and now as that's gone, I will move on from here. There are few other similar stuffs need to be dealt with. I can wait for protection to expire or someone else to do the job. Anyway, thank you for prompt action. Anup   [Talk]  17:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was surprised when I looked at the diffs, because to be honest I was expecting a straightforward revert of that site in and out of the article, and that would have probably been a 1 week semi for spam. But that's not what I saw, and so I have to avoid taking sides and just do whatever is fair between everyone. Doing nothing wasn't an option, one option is blocking you and the IP ranges equally, but that's cracking a sledgehammer with a nut and instantly gains me a few enemies so - no thanks. Anyway, unless the IPs come here and discuss, I think we have consensus on the current version that is locked. By far the best way to deal with unsourced OR, of course, is to source it - occasionally you might see me add something with an edit summary of "would it kill ya to cite a reliable source?" but it does stop arguments. We need to do something about the "death section" though - "breathed her last" is completely unsuitable per WP:EUPHEMISM and if she's that nationally famous, we ought to be able to find more sources than simply the Bollywood Reporter, right? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I regretted the moment I violated 3rr. I seriously did and would not have burst into anyone for a soft block for few days. I reported it to rpp & aiv because I felt the need of an admin attention/intervention as no matter how many times I revert their unsourced changes, they will keep re-instating it. I've interacted with them before, I knew they'd never engage in any kind of discussion.


 * Yes, someone needs to dig into web archives to source "Death and aftermath" and "Personal life" sections. Still there are some stuffs that rather needs trimming and re-wording. As it is currently locked for only admins to edit - and you seem to be willing to fix it, I would suggest  to look into. Anup   [Talk]  19:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think things have calmed down now, so I've unprotected - there's no need to leave it locked when there's no obvious threat of disruption. If the IPs start kicking off again, at least we have a firm consensus to semi-protect against. As for improving "death and aftermath", I'm not sure where to start but I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * We are not Wikipedians, We don't have wiki page always in front of our selves. It's once in a while we come up. Sometime we make it in a day or two sometimes once in a few months. We are not editing the whole Wikipedia either... we aren't spamming the whole wikipedia either... we are just watching this page. It was interesting to see how you all put your views and judgements. All our motives are we need some space in it. We thank Ritchie333</b> for his thoughts he had put down initially. - Divyabhartiportal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.41.233.243 (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Added few refs, removed unsourced/trivial contents. Anup   [Talk]  21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Divya Bharti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120303144558/http://www.amarujala.com:80/Cinema/Dream-Girl-Hema-Malini-become-Hidinba-2571-1.html to http://www.amarujala.com/Cinema/Dream-Girl-Hema-Malini-become-Hidinba-2571-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)