Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 4

Controversies.
Sorry but I worked hard on it. If you see the pages of Tom Cruise etc, you'll see how much the controversies are expanded. As you also can see at the history of this talk page, User:Plumcouch suggested to expand controversies, while you supported her suggestions, Pa7.


 * Alleged affair - Formerly I was OK with the removal of one IMPORTANT para. Now I disagree, your claim is that any further information is considered gossip. Controversies are NOT gossip. Gossip - is a rumour which has no firm proof or approval. It was a BIG issue in India, Every day's newspapers dealt with the issue, all the programs on TV etc, I think it should be even more expanded.


 * Ness Wadia - Ness Wadia was the name of the case, but the one who was widely involved in it was non-other than Zinta. Her phrase Don't Target My Boyfriend wasn't a simple thing. It was because of Zinta's reputation. Zinta was the one who came to argue and confront the journalists that's why the controversy is mainly Zinta.

Small... It was actually small because of the removal made by Pa7. In geberal, each controversy id a different one and has to be separated as per its case name.

Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I may have supoorted the expansion, but most of what was written was just not needed, such as Krishnamoorthy writing on her blog about Zinta. I totally understand that you worked hard on the page, but Wikipedia is an on-going project where every page needs improving. Im doing what I feel was right, also the sections are quite small so what is the point of all the sub-sections. The Alleged affair bit is terrible and needs reducing, the stuff about Ness Wadia was about him which is why I removed it. I'm going to try and be civil, but Im going to reduce the stuff about the "alleged affair" as it's just too much -- Pa7 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, what do you mean by Too Much. Let me once again direct you to the page of Mr. Tom Cruise. His page is widely noticed and can serve us as a template for Zinta's page. If you see Shilpa Shetty's page. There are huge blocks of CONTROVERSIES. With all my redpect to Shetty and Celebrity Big Brother, Zinta is not less successful than Mrs Shetty. There are only 3 paras in Zinta's page, which I repeat - have to be expanded. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the blog is important. It comes from a quite reliable site, where it is written clearly. Krishnamurthy blamed Zinta twice. Why not mentioning that? We are not giving further information on what exactly was said in the blog.


 * I personally feel it should be expanded. I wanted to expand it but I had no time for it today. I think it's good to go as per Tom Cruise's/Shilpa Shetty's pages. you're saying It should be REDUCED. Why reduced? What about rewritten, rephrased. I don't get this insistence. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Australia
She is an Indian actress. The film is the first one being entirely shot in Australia. Zinta is the leading actress. So it's directly related to her. For an Indian actress shooting abroad for three months is actually part of her career. you can see in Jolie's career section, Jolie moved to New York (not for shooting - not related to her career even), so for Zinta, three months of her life were spent in Melbourne for shooting (so it is related actually to her career). We are not talking about something like Baabul marked B R Chopra's 50 years celebration... and we don't even talk about Salaam Namaste, only about Zinta. In fact, I don't really understand what's the so big deal, just a little line of essential information. You can remove the first part of the statement where it is said that the movie was shot in Australia.

Btw, I don't know why you removed the fact about The Hero being the most expensive film. We use to give information on films, such as in Jolie's page it's written this film is a low-budget and another is a high etc. Why can't we write that Zinta was part of the biggest Bollywood budget? My best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not realise I was making a "BIG DEAL" out of this sentence, which is suddenly seen as essential information. Please, let say that Wikipedia is an on-going project, and in my opinion I felt that that statement was not needed. So what if she spent three months in Melbourne. She's an actress, she has to travel around the world and shoot at different locations. Yes, it is an important aspect of an actors's career but location shooting is a production note. She spent a month in London for Jhoom Barabar Jhoom a month in Chandigarh for Mera Bharat Mahaan, do we add all these notes? As for the Hero thing, I don't remember removing it or the film being "claimed" to be the most expensive, so your gonna have to remind me about this. -- Pa7 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No one said that if we add that to SN, we have to add that to MBM and JBJ. The most notable thing about this fact is that she is the first Indian actress to shoot a film entirely in Australia and she was part of a film that was shot entirely in Australia... What do you think?

As per The hero, look your last four edits, the first one of them shows how you removed this fact. Don't you pay attention to your own removals? -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather answer the above question on your user page rather then here, secondly like I said before she is an actress that will go to different places, the fact that Salaam Namaste was shot in entirely in Australia is a credit to the film not the actress. -- Pa7 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you pay attention to your own removals? - I'm sorry for saying that, PA7. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Online Magazines Awards
I see that the PlanetBollywood.com's award has been added to the list of awards that Preity has won. Is this allowed? Can we also add the one BollySpice gave out at the start of this year? http://www.bollyspice.com/features/view.php/bollyspice-choice-awards.html

--82.45.48.116 06:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * She didn't win any award there. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  08:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant for other stars and films? --82.45.48.116 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Making her acting debut in Mani Ratnam's Dil Se (1998), Zinta had her first commercial success with Soldier from the same year, and was widely recognized with Kundan Shah's Kya Kehna'' (2000). She went to enact different and diverse roles during her career, keeping versatility as an actress. After a number of critically and commercially successful films, she received her first Filmfare Best Actress Award for her performance in Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003), as well as numerous other awards. She had her biggest commercial success with Yash Chopra's romance Veer-Zaara (2004), and was praised for playing roles of Indian modern women in international hits like Salaam Namaste (2005) and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006).''

Looks good, needs some fixing but still. I like the new idea that popped up in my head - her roles in SN and KANK are actually roles of modern and independent women. It's good to mention that. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reviews
Im not liking the way the page is being filled up with reviews. It looks cluttered and we do not promote actors on Wikipedia. Is there any way of reducing them down? Opinions needed on this. Regards. -- Pa7 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't like and it is your personal opinion and your own problem, cause reviews are definitely permitted and even needed. Every review was well selected by me. And what do you mean by reducing? There is only ONE film using two reviews. That's all. I think it's great to add critical comments. See Jolie or whichever FA page. Have you seen the amount of quoted reviews? Huge!

If we say an actor is praised so there is nothing bad in stating our opinions. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So I don't like it, you do, so it's kept basically? -- Pa7 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Im gonna back off for now, it seems were not in agreement (as usual!). I'll wait until your done with the article, then state my opinions. Also I don't want to get into another massive argument. -- Pa7 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want it either. We are not in agreement because you apparently want the page to be as miniature as possible.

There is a difference between your dislike and my liking. You don't like it cause it's your opinion and you personally don't find favor in it. On the other hand, my opinions are based on many high class articles and are approved everywhere. I do want the page to reach to the highest possible level. Why not?

You know your opinions are important to me, cause you're the only one who works on this page except me, so what exactly do you have problems with, and what are you skeptical about? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'll wait until you've done whatever you need to. I noticed that you added the working icon for this page to your user page, so obviously you've got many plans for the page. No, I do not want the article to be as "miniature as possible" and if that was the intention I was giving out then you've got it wrong. There was a time when I was working on this article to make sure that it stayed on the highest standards, but that was time ago now. You do whatever you need to, I'll state my comments when your done. -- Pa7 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's up to you. I just can tell you that everything I'm adding is well selected, permitted and approved by every high class articles users, so I'm not so sure that your doubts regarding the reviews or my new additions will work out. I'm strongly firm and my additions are decisive and are here to stay. Of course, things can be modified, but still. If you have logical doubts, please share - to prevent unnecessary tiffs. Yes I'm working on the page, but it soesn't mean you can't do it. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... you said I'm strongly firm and my additions are decisive and are here to stay. I might not agree with what's been added or written in the article so it's be forward to say that isn't it? Not just me but there might be other users that might not agree with what has been added so saying that there here to stay is a bit pushy, isn't it? Nevertheless, I will edit whenever I feel I need to and it may include re-writing or removing the additions you added. Just letting you know. -- Pa7 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I said that because there is no professional stations to your disagreement, it's your personal choice to dislike reviews, whereas my additions are well approved and even suggested for usage(I mean the reviews), so even if there were disagreements, I would have a back up. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you've misunderstood. My original post was about the quantity of the reviews used, that was the issue I had. Why would I dislike reviews? Well, if the issue does arise in the future then I'll be glad to know you have some "back up" cause of course I don't have any. -- Pa7 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, quantity? Can you give me a little example. Sounds interesting. BTW, that's what I meant by saying "as miniature as possible". And if you look through Jolie's page - There are very long reviews. If you see her page, to every mentioned performance, there is an attached review. so I don't know what you are skeptical about. BTW, every film from the filmo is mentioned. The less notable films just are not as detailed as the notable once.

I've selected the reviews with depth, and now you can see there are only noticed critics there. Like in case of Mission Kashmir, the critic is Deoshi. And there is more sense in saying "She plays the TV reporter as a veteran one...." rather than "She is good in her role". Every review is here after long searches and the ones here are the best. So I can repeat and tell you that I'm firm and my additions are here to stay (unless you bring better ones). -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My problem was the fact the article looked cluttered and there were too many reviews. Im not the only one working on Wikipedia or more specifically on this article so to say that I'm firm and my additions are here to stay may indicate to some editors that you have taken some sort of ownership over this article. It kinda reminds me of what Shez15 used to say regarding the Mukerji article. Im sure you would feel the same way if I came out with something like that. You said that you don't own the article on my talk page and Im convinced that you do not intend to take over the article, but what you said before puts me in doubts now. IM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF THIS, I WANT THIS BIT TO BE VERY CLEAR. If I feel the article needs a bit of a clean up and I remove some of the stuff you added for the sake of the article would you mind? I had a read through and I want to do some touch-ups but it MAY involve removing some of the reviews. --Pa7 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I told you word for word: "I don't own the article", and yes I meant exactly what I said by saying I'm firm, because reviews are permitted and they're very good to illustrate the quantification of appreciation she received for her this or another role. if you think that your comparison between me and Shez offends me - you're wrong. He was adding always all kinds of crap - I'm not doing this. My additions are important. I want the page to be in a high level. Why should the reviews be removed? If you give me a reason which is good enough, I'll accept that. However, you must use the talk page before everything which could be found as exaggerated removal of info. I didn't even bring reviews for every film. As I said and I repeat, see Jolie - to EVERY mentioned film there is an attached review, so what's wrong with Zinta? The reviews come from reputed sources like rediff, and very well known critics.

You want a clean up? Give reasons, explanations and suggestions here. And please make sure that your removals do not contradict rules and permitted things, and do not contain removals of allowed stuff just because YOU don't like it. I'm aware of the fact that some info can be seen unnecessary, so I'm waiting. I'm anxious to know what the right definition of "touch-ups" is by your standarts.

I want you to help me. Yes I do, cause I think you're a good editor, but I really can't get your intense will to reduce it as much as possible. Again and again and again I say - See Jolie. So much of information is provided there. Why don't you try to add information rather than removing all the time? When Shez was removing things from the page, you were re-adding them, why aren't you trying to add more today?

Plans

I've expanded the para of her columns, and I think we can dedicate a whole section to her own columns. There are some more columns and I want to expand it. I've found response links to her columns - Zinta as a writer/columnist sounds good but I'm definitely not sure. SRK has a section dedicated to his hosting.. so it inspires me.

Some sections will be integrated. The media section was modified by me and looks way better. Have you seen? We have to add reviews for films like SN and KANK which were great and bad ones for Jaanemann and JBJ. I want a Further reading section. That's why I'm looking for available bios of her on the net. I intend to expand her two near escapes from death, which we had to do way before. It is one of the most notable experiences of her life. If it was Jolie, it would be written as a whole section of notes and quotes. Am I wrong? -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I didn't like it and for me to remove something just because I DON'T LIKE IT is wrong and I would never do that. As for the RULES in this case, I am not aware of any rules I would violate if I do remove some stuff and I have never violated Wikipedia rules in anyway as far as I know. There are a few things that need correcting or removing in this article which is what I meant by touch-ups. Also you said, if you think that your comparison between me and Shez offends me - you're wrong. I know your not like him and that was not the thing I was saying in my message. Like you said, neither I or you own the article, so I will do whatever I need to to improve it. Im will do my best to make sure it stays in the highest standards. Also, FYI, I have not reduced the article - yet. As for the plans - fine. -- Pa7 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the Angelina Jolie article, and so yes, Im all for the reviews now. There are some grammer tweaks needed and I'll sort them out soon. Also some things may need moving about. -- Pa7 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering....
Who is Akash Gandhi?

from the article -

However, her most notable film out of the above-mentioned was undoubtedly Kal Ho Naa Ho, a tearjerker directed by Nikhil Advani and written by Karan Johar, co-starring along with Shahrukh Khan and Saif Ali Khan. The film was India's second biggest hit after Koi... Mil Gaya, and the year's biggest hit overseas.[3] She played the role of Naina Catherine Kapur, an insecure and angry Indian-American girl, who falls in love with a guy who has a heart disease. Her performance was unanimously praised and won her many awards, including the Filmfare Best Actress Award. Akash Gandhi from Planet-Bollywood proclaimed, "Preity Zinta has given her best performance as an actress. It’s amazing to see how much energy and talent is given in creating her character, Naina."[28]

If we're including this chap in the article, I'm guessing he must  be notable or famous in some way... Google isn't being very helpful either...

Also -

" Taran Adarsh noted, "After Kya Kehna, Preity Zinta accepts the challenge of portraying an unwed mother yet again in Salaam Namaste. The actor is terrific, delivering her most accomplished performance to date. Her lip locks with Saif will catch a lot of people unaware, but that's the sign of a thorough professional."[34]"

Who is Taran Adarsh?

If indeed these two are notable, I'm more than willing to make a new stub entry for each. If they aren't, then their views should be in the article in the first place. xC | ☎  13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh you're right in a way. There is a problem. Indian film critics are not so talked about on the net. Taran Adarsh is a film critic who was a director at the beginning. He directed some serial in the 90s and later focused on what he is doing now. He has an entry on IMDb. I personally don't appreciate his comments and reviews. As you can see here He was criticised for his reviews. As for Gandhi, I'll look for something. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor concerns
Since, the article is going for the big FA, I thought I'd present some things that concerned me:


 * In January 2007, Zinta visited Hisar, Haryana, and spent a day at the army training base to boost the morales of the jawans, and experience the kind of life that they lead. It was for a special show on NDTV's hallmark show Jai Jawan, where entertainers and actors visit Indian troops in far-flung regions to encourage them along with the NDTV team. In the frame of the show, Zinta also met children who were differently abled in the Asha School, and shared a reunion with her elder brother, Deepankar, who is serving in the Army as well.[66]


 * She then starred in Shirish Kunder's romantic musical Jaan-E-Mann, a typical Indian story of two guys in the US loving the same girl, co-starring alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumar.

I think the former should be moved to the In The Media section because I do not see what was humanitarian about her appearance on a tv show. She was encouraging troops, but I think that's about it.

I do not like the word typical in the latter sentence. I had a discussion about this with another user but it's still concerning me. I think the word should not be included because what defines as typical in Bollywood. It can mean rich girl, poor guy love each other etc etc etc. Also if this film was typical, then wasn't a film like Kal Ho Naa Ho typical. Two guys loved the same girl etc. It may be typical for someone who has watched Bollywood for years and years but not typical for someone who does not know anything about it or has not watched the films often. Also I've seen the film and it was not really the "two guys and girl love" story. Suggestions would be helpful. -- Pa7 13:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As the lead says, Minor concerns. They are. The first is definitely a cause - she came to experience the life these guys lead, to boost their morales, to encourage them. She even met some guys. In fact it's not a big deal.


 * If my memory does not deceive me, we have already discussed this. Go to my talk page - there you will find my very explained explanation. You say, "I do not like the word" - EXACTLY - That's YOU. I have also watched the film. It doesn't matter whether you often watch Bollywood films ot not. As for "but not typical for someone who does not know anything about it or has not watched the films often" Those who are not Bollywood fans or those who do not watch Bollywood films, that's even better as they'll learn something about Bollywood. Two friends/brothers loving the same girl has always been a typical story in Bollywood (in Kal Ho Naa Ho the're not friens from the outset): Sangam, Yeh Dillage, Salman and Manisha had some film (I don't remember the name) etc. etc. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said in my entry: I had a discussion about this with another user (YOU) but it's still concerning me, and I also have a right to discuss matters that worry me about this article. As I remember correctly, I decided to write on the article talk page then YOUR page if neccessary. I chose to write on this page because it concerns the article. I have not done anything wrong, I have a right to make any suggestions, changes etc. Just because I feel its wrong does not mean that my opinions go un-accounted for. There may be others who do not agree with it either. Im raising my concerns for this article because I want to make it better. I just felt that the word can be quite misleading because, in the case of you and me, what we think is typical is not what each other thinks. I still feel it should be removed. We need a third party opinion. -- Pa7 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh nice speech! You have a right you have a right. OK!!! You have. Everybody has, no need to emphasize it by remoniding it in every single message.


 * I'll tell you why you're wrong: what we think is typical is not what each other thinks. - There is nothing to think here. It is a fact it's not based on opinions or personal views. The film is a typical one, because there were thousand films based on the same story and basis. I didn't say that THE FILM was typical, I said THE STORY a typical Indian STORY. S-T-O-R-Y. -- Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OH!! Im sorry if I'm annoying you with my declarations and long speeches!!! I know you hate me right now and we'll probably never come to an agreement on this but what can I do, I just presented a minor issue, which is turning into yet another disagreement between us!! I agree that the two guys and a girl is a typical story, but saying that would go against anyone who feels that's incorrect. The article has to be neutral in that it does not present a one-sided fact. What about the story of a rich girl, poor boy etc, some people may think that's typical. I don't think the story was the two guys and a girl. It was a guy trying to make another guy fall in love with the former's wife so he can get out of paying any money towards her, until he finds out she gave birth to his child and realises the mistake he made. -- Pa7 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WHY? Why one-sided? I said and I repeat, it is a fact! FACT! There is nothing to feel here, it is not based on opinions. I don't care for a rich girl and a poor guy now (which is definitely typical too, from Awara, Muqaddar Ka Sikandar, Betaab and so on). I'm talking about this film. See what reviewer Adarsh says "JAAN-E-MANN is about two guys loving the same girl. Her first relationship doesn't work for certain reasons. Opportunity comes knocking again. The second guy rides into her heart. Sounds familiar?"
 * PS, I don't hate you cause I don't know you and to be very honest, don't want to. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm back. Come on you two whats the problem?

How about:

"Zinta then starred alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumarin Shirish Kunder's romantic musical "Jaan-E-Mann", which relates the story of two young men in America falling for the same girl.

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 14:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's not the case Blofeld. The text is OK. The user who has introduced this issue wants to remove the word typical and I disagree with that. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The story is a typical Indian story. I can't see the importance of this being known by somebody or not. The story is typical and even the critic agreed with that. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But isn't Wikipedia supposed to present all points of view? Yes it may be a fact, but not everybody would agree to the fact, which is why Im asking that the word be removed so that it is at least neutral. I don't want to know you either and may I ask that your personal comments about me be written on my talk page rather then here. -- Pa7 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it may be a fact, but not everybody would agree to the fact - This sentence has no common sense. A fact is a fact and there is no reason for someone to agree or disagree or raise a personal opinion at all, cause it is a F-A-C-T, and nobody and nothing can't change it. That's all.
 * I don't have any will to write any personal comments about you. Let's talk about matters. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, if you've got time please provide an input on the issue. Were kinda at a dead end here, as me and the other user can't agree. -- Pa7 16:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm neutral on this - there are far more other articles on Indian cinema which require major attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Zinta then starred alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumarin Shirish Kunder's romantic musical "Jaan-E-Mann", which relates the common story of two young men in America falling for the same girl.

A suggestion takes it or leave it mis amigos  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Like you said there are more articles that require help. Thanks for your input. -- Pa7 16:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For instance Govinda needed an image which I just added Govinda (actor) and his filmography needs ordering - it is backwards. Things like I think require more attention. I think it would be a great idea to browse articles and make a WikiProject Indian cinema/Notebook and write down issues you think need solving whether they are minor or major on other articles and work through them gradually as part of the work group. Browsing articles on films and actors and articles related to Indian cinema and compliling a detailed to do list would be a good step forward. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a brilliant idea, it will give people an idea of what needs sorting out. Any articles you got in mind that needs improving? I've got some articles that needs editing, I'll add to the list ASAP -- Pa7 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me??? When did I agree to this sentence PA7??!!! I didn't, so please don't enforce your own opinions. I took on writing this whole career section, and at the end of the day, you come change my edits? As you said, it's a fact, and that's why it remains here! So please stop, I've exapanded everything on this page and it looks encyclopedic for all intents and purposes, I didn't come to make minor edits like removing words, adding Sri Lanka, changing to past tense, and discussing insignificant things. There are much more important things to do on this article. So try to help. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was only after that I realised I was wrong in doing that so I apologize, but I have come to the conclusion that you think that you own the article. Therfore I direct you to Etiquette cause it says Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing. Also if you think that my minor edits are not improving this article then your damn wrong, because I know for a fact that Im helping out. So, Im going to do what Yamla said and that is to direct you to WP:OWN. You said I took on writing this whole career section, and at the end of the day, you come change my edits?, so I ask that you read it. Im not gonna deny that what you wrote in your message was particularly hurtful. Also I'd like to say, that when it comes to this article me and you will never agree. I felt the typical thing was un-neccssary but you have decided that it has to be in the article or in your own words: I will never concede. That is also a sign of ownership, so again I direct you to WP:OWN. If I remove anything you'll have a problem with it, so you tell me how will we work around this? I remember at one point when I was sorting the sub-sections and you had a problem with it. You told me your suggestions and made sure they were how you requested them to be. Why can't you do the same for me? Everytime I see anything that was written by yourself for this article, that I find un-neccessary, were gonna end up at this point: Where you keep it and my editing is constantly reverted? For example, isn't you deciding to keep the sentence the way it is enforcing your own opinions? If I remove typical your gonna kill me! So before I do answer me questions -- Pa7 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked User:Yamla to regulate what is said between the two of us, just in case anything inappropriate is said. I have not made a complaint about you, I want to make that perfectly clear. -- Pa7 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm gonna tell it straight. You need to stop bickering and get on with things and all those articles which require attention. Sorry but what benefit does spending time on conflict give to the encycloepdia?. As great as you both are, what is the use in arguing over one word of a sentence when there are 615 million words to be concerned with?? The truth is -does it really matter whether that one word typical is there or not? Sorry but it just isn't important to the actual information in the article -now if it was some debate over the accuracy of an event in Preity's life or childhood or something I would symphathize but what you are arguing over isn't even directly related the lovely Miss Zinta. I can see both your views and I suggested what could be done. If you don't accept it - its not my problem. Keep up the good work the both of you but please try not to dwell on these things. Think about the bigger picture is the best advice I can give. All the best  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that your "additions" are beneficial, so keep thinking that, and I know that you turned to Yamla with these really tiring and little tiffs. LOL. As you said, the word typical is a F-A-C-T, so that remains here. That's why I said "I won't concede" cause that's a fact, that's not an opinion. What's the matter? I know you're waiting for the right moment to catch me with fury, but I won't give you this pleasure.
 * Don't you ever dare pretending yourself as a saintly Teresa and directing me to WP policies. I've read these policies way b4. I don't own this article, I just say that At the end of the day you come to RUIN what other editors try to build just to annoy them. It is the same case as the previous one with the refs. You messed up with refs and then put them in the wrong place. TO ANNOY ME. And then went to Yamla to ask for my block, I know what the reason is, but I won't tell that now.
 * Had I thought that the article belongs to me, I wouldn't have told you "So try to help". I do think that minor edits are important, that's why I said that. When I say, I will never concede that's exactly what I mean and there are no ownership acts here, that's only that I think that this word (typical - the reason of this feud) IS important and there is no reason to remove it.
 * I told you once, and I'm saying that in front of Yamla: I have the right and freedom of expression (read Freedom of speech) to tell you that I don't consider you as an important editor here, so your acts do not interest me, and your attempts to make me lose control won't work. And you can go to Yamla Billion times, I know that I haven't done nothing wrong.
 * I totally agree with Blofeld, this little word is so insignificant, however Blofeld, this user is the one who raised her "concerns" - not me.
 * To Yamla, see this. Here Pa7 agreed with my explanation, but she raised her concerns here again and it is the proof that she is doing that to annoy me. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"I remember at one point when I was sorting the sub-sections and you had a problem with it. You told me your suggestions and made sure they were how you requested them to be." It was actually the opposite - Here you suggested to me and here you changed the subs. Pay attention to the times - You had changed the subs even b4 you suggested to change them and before receiving my message (if I agree or don't). Day after, I changed the subs (and both of us know that my version is better, which is here even today and everybody likes it) with an explained discussion on the talk page HERE, and you said you're fine with my version - I do always provide refs. Please read WP:CITE b4 saying things which are not correct. You may have thought that I wouldn't bother to reply on that - but here is the proof. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As for that -


 * And lastly, let me tell you that I'm shocked to see how we are referring to each other, via admins and other editors. Truly a pitty. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right, its a shame that we crashed and burned like this, but I guess things change. I think we refer to each other as "user", right? Its not my fault, it's not your fault but we've just got two conflicting opinions?!? I would write my reply to you, but this "saintly Teresa" is gonna stop "annoying" you and carry on editing. What you have accused me of has shocked me, but when you have friends like Blofeld of SPECTRE, you realise you do not have to deal with this. So, Im gonna put this whole thing aside, like you said you do not consider me important enough, well vise-versa. I'll still be editing on this page, just thought you ought to know. Please don't think of me as a coward, who's just backed off. Also, you said I know what the reason is, but I won't tell that now as a factor of annoyance from my part. If you ever do divulge the reason, please let me know. So, back at yah for everything you wrote and best of luck. -- Pa7 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've NEVER told you something lke "Stop editing here" or "Keep away". On the contrary, I said "Try to help", you consider it as a sign of ownership! But as I said I don't care. Please see this section - it takes so much of KB place and that's the funniest thing here, for What? For the word typical (which is a fact), when all I'm trying to do is to make it more interesting and less superficial. I'm trying to help the article, I want it to succeed. We both like Zinta, so I want t do it as better as possible. I'm taking hours on reading FA articles and it gives me inspiration.
 * You said to Blofeld that the reason of our tiffs might be " the fact that were from two different countries" when you don't even know where I live and what my country is! I hope for you, that this was the last time you're talking about me with other users. What you said to Blofeld was another violation ("His true colours have come out") of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA cause it is a personal attack for all intents and purposes, and I'll use it against you if necessary.
 * My ego is not hurt, yeh I did work on it and very hard with the help of dear friend like Blofeld, and many editors (except you of course) applauded me for my work as the page looks like this because of me.
 * Keep on editing, life is beautiful,
 * I do my thing and you do your thing.
 * I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
 * And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
 * You are you, and I am I,
 * And if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
 * If not, it can't be helped (as per me: it's even better). (Fritz Perls)


 * Nice no? LOL! I'm an admirer of literature! Byyyyyyyeeeee!!! -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  11:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was nicely said. Very fitting for our situation, especially the last part you added: If not, it can't be helped (as per me: it's even better), I feel exactly the same way. Just to clarify, you've also been talking about me to him as well, so I direct your comment to you. We've both said things we should not have, so again I direct your comments to you. If you do feel the need to use that "true colours..." stuff against me, then fine. I do remember saying to you that I respected you for the work you did on this page. Nevertheless, I hope you are successful in achieving your goals. I am professional enough to wish you all the best for the future and good luck with whatever you do. -- Pa7 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, wish you the same. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)