Talk:Gajendra Chauhan

TRP
What's a TRP? 159.83.182.5 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Malafife edit done by IP addresses and other unregistered editors
From past 30-45 days many anonymous IP addresses influenced by some ideology are editing Gajendra Chauhan in malafide way, all Wikipedian are requested kindly share views on the matter. And helps vandalism to stop at this article by anonymous IP addresses. Honi02 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

All Wikipedians share your views here, how can we improve this page by sharing appropriate information and stop vandalism by IP addresses. Honi02 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute
Hey User:Journojp if you have a content dispute, then perhaps discussing the matter between ourselves at Talk:Gajendra Chauhan would be the logical solution. Besides that you malign the image of Gajendra Chauhan by imposing someone else view and your editing looks at many phase influenced by some ideology to malign Gajendra Chauhan.Editing at Wikipedia in bad faith is itself a vandalism ,its better you share your views here and do you edit in neutral way ,which itself is better option .Honi02 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * it is also bad faith copying the words from another editor. In your original post you use the sentence - "if you have a content dispute, then perhaps discussing the matter between ourselves at Talk:Gajendra Chauhan would be the logical solution" which is identical to my comments made to your both at WP:BLPN.
 * If you both have a disagreement on content issues, then you BOTH need to start talking about them right here on this talk page. You can also request additional people to take part in the debate by posting a message at WikiProject India, for their members to also add their views on the matter. Other options available to help you both reach a consensus is by seeking a request for comment from uninvolved Wikipedians, or even a third-opinion request, where an experienced editor will come along, view both sides of your debates, and then help you to reach a mutual decision that keeps everyone happy.
 * What I strongly discourage you both from doing is arguing with each other, it is not helping the resolve the situation, but only making things a hell of a lot worse. Something which could end up getting either or even both of you blocked if you start personally attacking each other, or even engaging in an edit war. Now please, both of you stop attacking, especially you, and work peacefully together.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 11:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also discourage the use of personal attacks in the format of a section header directly aimed in a bad way towards another editor., you are showing very strong signs of ownership, incivility, attacking editors, and edit warring. All these are bad behavioural issues, and can be sanctioned by the issue of a block. It is high time that you shown some etiquette to your fellow Wikipedian's. You need to assume good faith, because accusing someone of bad faith, is actually bad faith in itself, and is showing your intentions to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, by causing disruptive edit wars. Now stop it! The pair of you. Talk to each other peacefully, and I will be watching this talk page to make sure you both act with civility. Otherwise we may need to look at requesting admin intervention to sort the pair of you out.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 12:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey ,i dont what makes your view towards me of ownership, incivility, attacking editors, and edit warring. I as an rules of Wikipedia asked him to stop editing this page in bad faith ,for which you can go through page history ,but again as you said It is high time for me to  show some etiquette to me fellow Wikipedian's.,i havn't  shown any disrespect towards him.I just asked him to discuss the matter at talk page ,which itself is not a bad faith.If you feel my conduct was not suitable ,then i may decide to quit Wikipedia as i havn't shown any bad faith towards anyone.You can see my contribution to Wikipedia from past years in good faith.I think requesting for admin intervention is always a better option to solve any edit wars .Honi02 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am always ready for open discussion and i always believe in things to resolved through peacefully discussion but my fellow Wikipedian was editing with out discussing .You can go through a series of edits by him which includes some malign edits towards Gajendra Chauhan ,so i request him to talk to me in peacefully manner to defends himself .I will peacefully discuss the matters with him as Wikipedia is not someone's monopoly ,it was built by contributions of numerous editors.If he feel bad due to my allegations on him of bad faith edits ,then i am soory to him and inviting again him to discuss the matters here peacefuly.Honi02 (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . The evidence of ownership can be seen in the way you conduct your comments at . In that discussion you are basically demanding users only edit in the way you want them to edit. That is a violation of ownership. We work together, as a community. You also attacked by accusing his edits as vandalism. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with what vandalism is not. From what I see in the edit history is, Journojp following the correct procedure set out at WP:BRD, although they started the discussion at a noticeboard rather than on this talk page. SOme of the things you have said via the edit summary have been uncivil towards Journojp, and that is not a nice thing to be doing. Remember, that we are to assume good faith, even if we feel and suspect the other user of acting in bad faith. Perhaps having a look at the list of bad faith tactis will help you understand what is actually considered "bad faith". We are also to avoid accusing others of bad faith, that in itself is a good faith thing to be doing. But you have not done so. Instead you keep telling Journojp, that their edits are in bad faith. How can you assume they are in bad faith? Every user is doing things in good faith, until it is proven with evidence that they have done the opposite. Now I would urge you to apologise to Journojp, and work together to resolve this issue... IN PEACE!  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 12:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article with a list of issues that seriously need addressing, as the article itself is written in very poor English, contains too many links to words, and geographical locations - which are to be avoided per WP:OVERLINK. So I am going to have a look at the entire article over the next few days and repair and re-write it so that it complies with all of the rules for Wikipedia. Whilst I am doing this, I still recommend that you both discuss the other issue you had encountered.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks Wes Mouse yes agree with your concerns ,I hope with your help we can improve this page accordingly Wikipedia guidelines ,I openly invite Journojp to discuss the various matters with me and contribute in building this article .Honi02 (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The is very good to see, Honi02. I would kindly ask that you do not edit the article though while I am carrying out the major improvements. All of the sources are not properly attributed with cite web which is another major concern. If there are any sources which I need help translating with, would you be able to provide that for me?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes sure Wes Mouse  I will not edit till you improve page majorly.kindly elaborate me the method to provide you sources .what kind of sources do you want ?,I would love to help you with open arms.Honi02 (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * At the moment, Honi02 I do not require any further sources. What I meant to say was that I do not speak or read Hindi; so if I came across any websites that was in the language, then would it be OK if I were to add them here so that you may be able to translate into English? Then it would help me to improve the article as best as possible.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not brother, Wes Mouse ask me for as much translations you want.Honi02 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Wes Mouse  ,can you see few edits going on by IP addresses without citing any reason.Honi02 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I see them now. Don't worry, there is a way around this.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Wes Mouse  can you see another vandalized edit as some edits his wife name wrongly.Honi02 (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for telling me people are "vandalizing". But I cannot keep checking for those edits while I am in the middle of re-writing the entire article. Do not worry what the IP's are doing, as their edits will not be there once I have finished re-writing the whole thing.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wes Mouse brother.Honi02 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * if either of you know the character roles that this actor played in each of the listed film/television shows which he appeared, then please could you add them to the table.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes Wes Mouse  I will certainly do that but I need some time to research on that .Honi02 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wes Mouse, just added two. thanks. shall be back if I come across more information. Journojp (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wes Mouse, Gajendra Chauhan has never been to FTII but learnt acting in a school run by Roshan Taneja after he left teaching at FTII. The relevant part of the newspaper interview that you have cited is: "I learnt acting from Roshan Taneja who had been a teacher at FTII. When he left FTII, he opened his academy in Mumbai and I was one of his students." Journojp (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * give me a break. I'm still trying to sort out the mess of the article that was all over the place and violating so many of the manual of style rules. I'm not super-human that I can get an article cleaned up within seconds.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 19:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Article reconstructed
Right, as I pointed out above, I have done a major re-write and construction of the article. Before work started, the article looked like this, with only 10,502 bytes. Now it looks like this with 12,352 bytes. As you can see the article itself has expanded in size, and has address so many of the problematic issues that we of great concern. To both Honi02 and Journojp, you need to remember that this article is about a living person, so Wikipedia has more strict rules in place, which neither of you seem to have been following.

In future it would be highly recommended that you make sure you keep to the following Wikipedia rules, and hopefully avoid getting yourself into heated disputes over content. Make sure that...
 * 1) ...the citation you use is 100% reliable.
 * 2) ...the article is written with the best English spelling, grammar, and punctuation as possible.
 * 3) ...Wikipedia's guidelines on manual of style are followed.
 * 4) ...when you add a source that you use the cite web template.
 * 5) ...you keep the lead section to a brief summary, and that you add no citations to the lead.

If in doubt, then give me a shout and I will come over and have a look.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 19:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work (both the rewrite and the counsel)! Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Abecedare. It was not an easy task to encounter, but I gave it my best shot.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 00:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the effort you have put in rewriting the article and for your suggestions (never mind, it looks like an overtly patronizing tone to me). I am not bothered by the shenanigans of the touchy editors but I am concerned when an article on Wikipedia misconstrues facts which are then cited all around as an evidence (as was being done in the ongoing debate on Gajendra Chauhan). I read the article only when it looked like what made you go after it. This particular editor undid every little edit that seemed to him, went against Chauhan. The obdurate tenacity with which any addition in the article was being resisted by this particular editor was beyond me. It was first time that I had run into this kind of behavior on Wikipedia. So I hoped to have someone like you to come and help. Thank you very much, once again. Journojp (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

600 serials and almost 150 films
I added attribution to this sentence in our article (I also removed Bollywood, since some of his earlier films, at least, fall outside that category), which is sourced to an ToI interview in which Chauhan says, "I've done 600 serials and almost 150 films now and have played all sorts of characters.". However, this is a redflag claim, and the only way it makes sense is if one interprets serials as episodes rather than different television serials. Is there a better, independent source that covers this, and should we retain the claim in its current form? Any suggestions on how we can make it clearer w/o entering WP:OR territory? Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you could be right, Abecedare. Serials does look as if it means "episodes". I find it a struggle to see any actor/actress to have played a role in 600 different television shows. But 600 episodes within a smaller number of TV shows, sounds more realistic. I couldn't find many sources about this, although some were in Hindu, and I do not speak/read the language. I added the Find template to the top of the talk page header, so that users had an easier way to access different ways to search for items on the internet - alas that didn't bring much up either.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 00:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence reviewing his film career based on this Times of India and this Firstpost article. Feel free to tweak, move etc. I have avoided naming the films cited by the articles, since they do not appear to have wikipedia articles + concerns of sensationization through selective listing (the movies are essentially exploitation films and some of the titles translate to "Lust", "Open windows" etc). Abecedare (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Friends. Someone is writing too good, too false of information about this man. Most of the statistics are false. Most are just Red Flag claims. Let us be optimistic and don't just make a person a Hero without proving or citing examples to support his claims. Most of the info, which i have seen and read about this man, doesn't make sense. Its written that he has done over 600 films and 150 TV series, which is an over the moon claim. Nobody knows of him. There is no data to support it. Just because he says it in the media, to save his newly given post/appointment, we should not make him a cinematic king. I have done some changes and have cited the latest info. on this man. Someone keeps changing it to sky-rocketing figures. In my opinion, let us only edit and write relevant things. People are getting a false image of him. I have cited the recent happenings on this man, that also has been reverted back to false short claims. The fact of the matter is that this man is being portrayed as a hero. Data is insufficient & fraudulent. Let us keep updating real facts and figures. Latest information since he is in the midst of a scandal. Lets not loose editing privileges. Lets not fight. Lets just keep this man's facts and figures neat and clean. Keep all views Apolitical! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandt1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * firstly, remember to sign your comments on a talk page using four tildes (~), like this: . Secondly, all of the previous content was cited. One needs to remember that we are to write in a neutral point of view, based on everything that can be cited, and verified. So if there are claims the actor did 600+ and other claims that he did far less; then both claims need to be noted within the article. That keeps the points of view neutral. Threatening people that they will "lose editing privileges", is a bad faith act to be doing. You also need to remember that we are to assume good faith with your fellow Wikipedian editors. And as I see from your own talk page, you have already been warned by an administrator for edit warring - so if I were you I would be extremely careful that you do not become the one to lose editing privileges by fault of your own actions.  Wes Mouse   &#10002;  10:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. Lets be Liberal and realistic. Lets stop discussing on this. Wrong information on anyone is misleading. I have nothing against anyone. I will continue to correct or edit wherever required. The article on this man is misleading. He has no credentials and we only are adding it to him. @wesleymouse : Why don't you teach me how to use and edit articles on Wikipedia. It would be of a great help. I am new and maybe doing a couple of mistakes here. Where and how do i sign?Anandt1 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

=deletion of whole contents=

Hello someone just delete whole contents from this page in malafide way,I think its vandalism.Honi02 (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been reverted. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor has received a WP:3RR warning also. --Neil N  talk to me 05:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

=Concerns=

Hello guys ,thanks you all for contribution towards this page according to standards of Wikipedia ,special thanks to Wes Mouse   who devoted almost half of his day towards reconstruction of this article by removing all errors ,grammatical errors and other stuffs.I think this inspired new Wikipedians to contribute ,specially me.

Guys me new concern is vandalism ,as you all know this page is witnessing more or less kind of vandalism from past couple of weeks ,may be because of controversy after Gajendra Chauhan appointment at FTII ,which agitating a section of students to malign the image without reliable source .I invite all such editors to discuss their matter at talk page Gajendra Chauhan and contribute at this page peacefully avoiding any edit-wars .Thanks all Honi02 (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * unfortunately in the world we live in, we will encounter vandalism on Wikipedia. There is nothing much we can do about it really, other than remove the edits and restore content. But you have to be careful when accusing someone of vandalism. Not every edit is vandalism. Some may be IP's doing test edits, or editing in good faith. Some of the edits that I have seen, are just that. With only a small handful being pure vandalism. I would kindly ask that you have a read and familiarise yourself with what is vandalism and what is not vandalism. Remember the golden rule; assume good faith in our fellow editors, even the IPs. You were once new to Wikipedia, just like they are - learning how it all works.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 10:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes Wes Mouse  I understand now what comes under vandalism and what's not ,thanks for teaching your juniors about Wikipedia.Honi02 (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Veteran or not
One of the editors has been very persist in trying to project Gajendra Chauhan as a 'veteran' (Incidentally this particular editor insists on writing "an veteran"). It cannot be justified just by citing a report in a website sympathetic to him (that used it like a honorific for him). It does not add anything to anyone' effort to know him better, but only obfuscates an issue, that is already contentious. The kind of adjectives and expressions used for Chauhan in various writings on him in last few weeks have not been very kind to him. One can cite some of them with proper references, and that too from publications of some standing. But would it be proper?

The point is - let's try to be fair.Journojp (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the adjective "veteran" in the lede sentence in unnecessary. The article already describes the length and breadth of his TV and flim career and there is no need to try and characterize it in a single word. Abecedare (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)