User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ/Archive 2

Kareena Kapoor
Hey Rahul,

Please beware of using too many "also" in the article. It ruins the whole concept of the text, and its high level. Another thing, she is not your friend nor is she mine, so please don't refer to her as Kareena, but Kapoor. It's not a magazine, so we must keep formality.

I'll add an automated peer review on the article talk page. Please follow its guidances.

PS: if you write me a reply feel free always to start a new section.

Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm yeh, you can't keep Kareena somewhere in the early life section. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I quite like the section like it is now. All the *notable* films are mentioned. Though MDK and MPKDH flopped they were notable (big banners; overseas success) but films that are not mentioned are simply not notable. I can also add Farz and Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke, but why? They're just non-notable! So I really think it's not needed. It will the brilliancy of the text, as well as show her in a bad light, as most of them are flops.


 * It's only the beginning of Bebo's career. She will be part of many projects, and who knows, in the future some section will be merged and new one created. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WOW god thank youuuuu!!!! Please wait a moment here. Are you waiting? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * How can you say that?! Of course you're worthy!!!:) I was going to give you a barnstar a few days ago, but was too busy with Zinta... OSO??? I haven't seen that!!! I'm going to see that!! Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Man you've been pretty active on Kareena's article today!!! It looks much better. Congrats! Be careful though if it is a screenshot -the Bollywood blog uses a few screenshots which are not covered by them and are owned by the film company. But most are OK. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes some of the screen type shots are taken by the Bollywood blog cameramen on set e.g see the image at the bottom of Shilpa's page -this is OK, but if it is an obvious screenshot e.g "Kareena in ...." as a caption on the site then I would advise not to upload it - we can't claim owenership of a film etc. Most images are OK though. But keep up the good work all the same. Regards  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, look the main page. Hema Sardesai, an article that I have created and written, appears in the "did you know" section!! Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Rahul, didn't notice your message - you're welcome. I have another advice to you. Please beware of writing too much "One critic praised her by saying..." - the review speaks for itself - it's somehow repetitious. You can say - "she received good reviews from critics. One critic wrote, '...' ...". But the previous way is not good. You must keep neutrality. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * 55.^ Kuckian, Uday (March 24, 2004). Bollywood's Most Beautiful Actresses. Rediff.com. Retrieved on April 3, 2007. - Could you tell me where did you get the author and the date fields from? I didn't find it there.
 * And the "Woman of many faces" date?
 * Shahid •  Talk 2 me  14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kapoor at GA

 * One moment, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest. The article IS a GA status deserving, yet I have some points:
 * There is no at least one criticism quote. And that must be. Some of the best actresses in the history of cinema like Bette Davis have whole sections dedicated to that. We have to be honest. I like Kareena, and I liked her performance in Omkara and Dev. Talent is in her blood. By saying she was criticized by critics, you don't really provide specific proof. Yet I like the article and it is well written.
 * Personal life should be toned down. "In 2005, Kapoor was in the news when onlookers with mobile phone cameras filmed her kissing her ex-beau Shahid Kapoor and released it to the news."
 * A) It should be somehow mentioned in the area where her relationship with Shahid is described.
 * B) What were the consequenced of this? Kareena's reaction?
 * C) I don't know if that is notable, cause she is not dating him. It was OK when he was her beau, and if it was a controversy, it would probably suit the article even now, but it is definitely not a controversy, because nothing is explained - there is only one line of mention.


 * Reviewers HATE short sections.
 * Kapoor was in great demand after these successes and signed many new movies, but most of them failed to do well.[22] Even much-hyped films like Mujhse Dosti Karoge! (2002) and Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (2003) that came from big banners like Yash Raj Films and Rajshri Productions failed to do well in India,[23][24] but generated decent business overseas.[19] - This but ruins the context. You have to rewrite it because it is not logical to write It was bad. Even..., but.


 * Overall the article is very well written, and easily meets the GA criteria. Again - It has some problems but it's OK. So I say go and nominate it! Good luck! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes MDK and MPKDH are the most indicated films to write criticism on her. Because they flopped. If you add another film it will sound kinda "She has flops with big banners, and is criticized for her roles in other films. The result: She was a complete disaster" So no need to lower her status by adding that (especially when other films are non-notable). Writing that she was criticized for MPKDH and MDK is better because then it will sound "She had flops and was criticized for her roles in THESE flops" so it doesn't show her in a bad light, because it indicates that these films were just unsuccessful critically and commercially.
 * In other words I'll explain this mess I've created here. It's better to provide a list of films which are commercial and critical failures, instead of making a LONGER list of failures.


 * I would remove the MMS because results, consequences are not provided, and Shahid is no longer her friend...


 * Can you show me this source you're talking about?


 * Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * although Shahid and Kareena are not dating - Add it to the article please.


 * No, I mean the source of K3G that you told me about the directors. Do you have it?


 * Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking the MMS bit, there is no much to it. Maybe you have more sources regarding this issue? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If we say, while they were dating, they were in the news because of an MMS clip - it sound gossip. Because it sounds like "they were in the news only ONCE because of the MMS LOL...


 * One moent, I'm thinking of that... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote, but still skeptical about leaving the MMS there. GA reviewer will probably keen to remove it. The papparazi of Saif is quite unnecessary, and her quote too. I'm still thinking LOL......... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you could find a quote of her saying they're on good terms. I've seen something like this a few days ago. She said that he's a great actor etc. That will be a really good one. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HI Bollywood. You can also count me as one of your friends, and I would also be happy to give you advice for promoting it. Good work  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can either later tonight or tomorrow I haven't been on here all day. Best regards  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Hi I had a chance to read and review Kapoors article this morning and have made some adjustments. Not bad but it will still need some work to be up to GA standard. While you try to balance the many quotations on her critical praise with "failed at the box office" for me the number of highly praising quotations on her performance is too prominent for an encyclopedia article. To me it looks selective in that you have purposefully included many of the quotations that greatly praise her at the expense of any negative reviews she has received. For me if you must include all of these, you must certainly include more detailed quotations on any negative reviews she received particularly 2004 -present even if she has been largely critically successful. I would cut back on one or two of the quotations which repeatedly emphasise her beauty and status and be more selective and try to include a bit more detail on any negative response she got from any of her films as I said 2004- present. I have added the neutrality tag to that section until it is addressed. Mostly though you have tried to balance is well and it is a major improvement to what it was several weeks ago. Keep up the good work on it, I'm sure we can get it up to GA status in no time at all if these quotation ssues are addressed. All the best  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than this I would also like to see one or two references about the films that failed commerically. E.g how much did they take in relation to the biggest films of the year etc. This would also give factual justification for the repeated comments on "the film failed at the box office". I hope this all helps  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 09:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing I am very impressed with though is your ability to discuss the content of her films and her role within them. This for me is the strongest part of the article  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 09:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If this issue is addressed it should easily pass a GA. The content clearly meets GA requirements but you need to fix these minor issues  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh that's what I told him. I didn't talk of turning point-present but anyway it really sounds too much.
 * A) First of all, Rahul, you aren't forced to write box office status for EVERY film. Films like Dev and Omkara can easily be introduced without any box office notice.
 * B) Though you're trying to make it interesting - it generally uses the same template, "didn't do well... but she was praised". Some criticism/comment is necessary. Of course, not for films like Dev, Omkara, Chameli or whatever similar, but other ones will serve it well. You don't have to criticize her SHARPLY. Take Zinta's article, Khullam Khulla Pyaar Kare. Zinta wasn't criticized, but she didn't receive good reviews either unfortunatly, see the review. It is called comment and it's good. If I tried to avoid this comment, it wouldn't be neutral. Otherwise in Kareena's article, it's on the extreme of glorification.


 * Good luck! It's very near to reach a GA status. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say EVERY film Shahid. I meant one or two just to back it up a bit. And I also didn't say to criticize her SHARPLY either. I would jus tlike to see more eveness with quotation thats all. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Blof I didn't say that we have to criticize her sharply either. And my suggestions are written without any relation to your message and to what you wrote here. And as you told me, I said the same, a very frequent writing template is used on the article. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes definately discuss the different reviews together, but don't go into too much detail. It is very important to try to think of it neutrally and cover polarised views of the film at the time. I mean certian films may have almost entirely positive reviews but I did get the impression that for many of the positive quotations it is missing something on its critics etc. Its a tricky one but if the film received mixed receptions this should be illustrated clearly. I hope this helps  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Rahul, as it was said to you, the problem is not lack of criticisms, but:
 * A) Lack of neutrality.
 * B) The same writing template.
 * C) Just don't exaggerate with criticism LOL... You can add one-two criticism or as I explained to you above: Comment.
 * Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome friend!! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything is fine, Rahul, just that ref no. 29 is merely copied from Wikipedia in its initial look, as I did a check. I'll suggest you to add the ref of the Mujhse Dosti Karoge review instead, because it precisely indicates that she is criticized for becoming a typecast actress. In the Chameli case, the review speaks for itself no need for refs to prove this claim: "critics took notice of her again". So it's OK. I would remove the ref for my own but I don't want to disturb you in between your edits. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No Rahul it shouldn't, if you have that mentioned (and well referenced) in the article so remove this fact tag from the lead, though it's good to prove things at times initially, but it's OK remove. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have sorted out the issue and are convinced it is now neutral and presenting a fair view of the matter feel free to remove the neutrality tag. It was only there temporarily until you sorted it. I'm tied right now but I'll check later perhaps tomorrow so see how it has developed. The main thing is that you add some of the views that weren't so gushing on the failed or mixed reviewed films to give a more balanced view. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What? didn't Kareena appear in OMO? Why? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops LOL I mean OSO... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

JWM
Have you seen it? I came for the second show yesterday!!!! GREAT!!! Kareena is a crazy girl ;)!! Very good performances indeed, and the music is SUPERB... Tell me, what did you think about it? Or haven't you seen it yet? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a sure hit, and it's great. I don't know, OSO does not really appeal to me, to be honest. So I guess it would be Saawariya... Oh but actually it depends on what will be screened first, I'll buy tickets for both of the films (there is a good discount if you buy two tickets LOL Ha Ha Ha;)). It's really interesting how Bhansali directed a fresh love story with his serious image, isn't it? I'm really anxious.. I also like him as a director, and Khamoshi The Musical is my favorite film out of the list. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey friend!!
Yes, I said that she hadn't appeared in Tamil films. And she really hadn't;). PI and RK are Telugu films, don't confuse. So we can't say that she's acted in Tamil films. Therefore, her film history has gone only through Hindi, Telugu and English films. That's what I've written. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeh if you see Blofeld's talk page, you'll see that I introduced this concern but he said it's OK for FA and the reviers agreed so I guess it's all right. I think the images for Kareena were great and it would be great if you added it. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh god it was a misunderstanding... I said she hasn't appeared in Tamil films, and left it there, removing the Telugu... LOL... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh and I also think that she is very likely to win her first Best Actress Award. Performances this year haven't been impressing so far. Yet, I think that Omkara is better for the simple fact that she was mostly acclaimed for her performance in the film. It is still her career best isn't it... Additionally, she is so glamourous in the other images, so it would really contribute to the article if you added Kareena's image where she has a di-glamorized look. BTW, don't use more than four images of FU ---> violates the criteria. Oh I really remember the day of Refugee's release. My family was so excited with Abhishek's and Kareena's debut, as he is the son of a legend and she is the grand-d of a legend. All the family in the cinema it was so great. And they didn't dissapoint us eventually. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * More than three actually. You can't use more than three images, I remember reading some FAC which was failed because of this. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeh Dixit is also yet to come. I really didn't like Laaga Cunari... But remember that Dixit is Star Screen Award's favorite... LOL she always won. Over Kajol and herself (in DTPH).. Nobody knows. Oh and there's Sonam Kapoor!!! Sanjay Leela Bhansali!!! Nobody knows but I think that Kareena does deserve the award. She is so CRAZY!!!
 * My suugestion, out of the four --- Keep K3G out. Debut ---> Turning point ---) the most acclaimed (and one of the most recent) is way way better I think. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of it was dreadful!!! She becomes a prosti within 5 minutes and her whole "profession" is discussed and illustrated in one song. It's too dramatic, boring, and a very bad attempt of Aditya Chopra to make a realistic drama. In addition - It is COPIED. I personally do like Filmfare, cause I have grown up watching it and watching Screen also. But I do have some problems with screen at times. I think Shilpa or Urmila should've won the award for a 2004 film. And in 2002 - Tabu had to win for Chandni Bar ANYWAY - not Kajol. But OK... Oh BTW have you watched the brilliant The Namesake? Do you think Tabu will win the Oscar... mmm I'm not sure. She was brilliant and wonderful because it was a completely different role and for Indians it's wonderful to see her portraying a Bangali with such naturalness, but Americans don't know about her efforts to change her image cause they don't know her... So what do you think? Will she win?  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to buy tickets tomorrow, both OSO and Saawariya will be showcased in a near cinema. I do hope for Tabu. She has never won a Filmfare Best Actress Award and it will be a shame for the whole Indian community to see her winning an Oscar LOL, but she won two National film awards so it's OK. I'm happy that Zinta works with Deepa Mehta now. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear friend, thank you so much for your help!!! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you happy with my edits today? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All the best with Kareena's one. Count me in. I was previously looking for more info of Kareena but found nothing, and was too busy with Zinta. After finishing Zinta I'm going to help you expanding it. In the media, commitments, all of that must be expanded and I'll look for some good stuff. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks buddy - the three of us work well together but as you said I work in many fields across wikipedia and often don't have time to puruse it like this - but am always happy to help in an area I see much potential in and help an FA. Keep up the great work with Kareena and the best of luck on. Always feel free to ask for help or advice. All the best. Baldy  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, of course I will help you with these pages, although I saw Laaga... LOL just kidding!!! Rani is not guilty of that. That's Aditya - both TRRP, JBJ and now LCMD are complete disasters and disappointment for me. Hope AN with Madhuri will follow Chak De India's steps. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian cinema collaboration of the fortnight
I think it may be a good idea like what I have done with the James Bond group to work on an actor or film in a two week or monthly period and aim at getting it up to GA standard. I succeeded in getting about 7 GA's in just a few weeks. Several of us could collaborate on a specific article every two weeks with the aim of getting a start or B class article to GA status which can be done quite easily. I believe the INdian cinema group could set an example for othhers to follow by attempting to win a GA every two weeks for an article on an actor or film. I think we should work on the greats first. Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha. -Hey I fixed some of the images and added a superb shot of them from 1981 - could you imagine the eyes on the kid if they were together!!! What do you think? Whilst we can still all aim at improving stub class Indian cinema articles I think it was also ptovide more focus for the group to work on a given article and collaborate. 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jab We Met.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jab We Met.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rahul
This user who sent you the comment above is removing every source whivh HE does not like even box office India. I ask you to help me fight with his unbearable reversion. Things need to be discussed on the talk page. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's OK dear friend. I believe, when we will work On Kareena's article we'll have much more experience. You won't believe this, I was blocked for 3RR revert because of these guys removing references. It was so irking! And then I couldn't help and used my sister's PC, which led to an extension of my block to 72 hours. I couldn't believe this. But I was unblocked at that same day.


 * Regarding the refs, they are saying that boxofficeinfia.com is unreliable and now they claim that The Times of India is unreliable!!! It's a shame, I get too upset. I really think to leave Wikipedia sometimes. It's amazingly sad that I have to face such an impolite attitude. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
You won't believe this. The Preity Zinta article has been listed for Good article reassessment, while all these guys who opposed to its FAC promotion, claimed that it has to be delist. I'm shocked. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  09:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
It's wonderful that friends like you don't forget to talk to me. Thank you for this wonderful barnstar, and for your kind words!!! Happy Diwali!! I just saw OSO... It was a good Masala flick, and Deepika is sure to be a top star! She is very beautiful and even acts very well. I'm yet to watch Saawariya, I'll see if reviews are valuable.

I'm not upset because of the Preity delisting. I'm not really concerned by GAs. It's not a big deal. I was sad because it was just unfair, and people were so impolite and rude. That's the reason to Blofeld's decision to leave. It was just a shame! He was disappointed! But he will come back very soon. One great user helps me with the Zinta's article. Most of the article was cut down. You can emulate it in some ways, if you want.

Again thank you for this great message. I'm happy your here. Thanks again:):):), Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld was indeed highly pissed off, which is why he needed to flee to northern Kreblaskistan for several days to avoid having to waste his time further justifying things to people. He will return Monday or later in the week and re attempt to dominate but will not try to dominate the Zinta article again. Bye  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 23:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Rahul! Mmmm there is something wrong with it. I don't get it. It writes spam or whatever. Do you have the same? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You won't believe this. See this: Articles for deletion/List of Bollywood film clans. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rahul hello!
Sorry to say that, but there's nothing else to do. Please consider removing all the unreliable sources from Kareena's page, and all the non-notable critics (thanks god I've created a page for Taran Adarsh). Reviews from indiainfo, apunkachoice, smashits, Des Pardes, thehotspotonline etc. etc (there are many) should be removed. Otherwise, it will never pass GA status, and even worse - some bad users will mess it up very soon. I suffered a lot because of this. But that's it. There is nothing to do. I would do that, but you were working so hard, that's why I don't want to touch it.

Try to get reviews from Times of India, Rediff, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, BBC and all kinds of possible newspapers and RSes.

Apart from that, you can emulate Preity's page in some of the new formats.

Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now they say that bollyvista is also unreliable. Oh God! I was forced to remove it from Zinta's page. It's a BIG problem. I can't stand this. Now they also say that FU images are completely un-permitted, when so many FAs use it that way. I'm not going to concede over this. Another thing, I guess you didn't know this: all the bollywoodblog images are going to be removed I think. Sorry for the bad news. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Rahul, How are you?
 * Rahul, I just saw Kapoor's page, and although it's a very progressive article, it is full of fancruft and peacocketry (i.e unconvetional). You really have to cut down many the "praise" words. They should be mentioned not more than 3-4 times. For example, if she won an award for her performance, no need to write that she was praised, let alone unanimously praised etc. Believe me, if you sent it to a GAC and someone like Binguyen saw that, it would never get a GA status, and of course not FA, with this Tony who almost killed us because we'd written that she's popular.
 * Though I see many refs were replaced - good work! Oh yeh and we can't add the quote of a publicist. A) He is non-notable. B) He is not a critic. Also, please try to find reviews from other sites too. I see indiaFM everywhere. A big problem which gives the impression that he is the only one.
 * There is also a completely unnecessary attempt to highlight her box office status, as an actress who makes many flops. It has to be mentioned only in the lead. The lead is the one para who has to summarize the matter, and in fact, she is not so bad at the box office. From what I see, she has four major hits (MKKH, K3G, Hulchul, JWM) and it's definitely OK in a 7 years career. Yes, maybe compared to the number of films she's done, it's a little number, but I think it's OK.
 * On the other hand, there is also an exaggeration of her critical success. Saying "Majority of her films brought her critical..." is not true. Refugee, Chameli, Yuva, Dev and Omkara, those were the really successful critically. A very similar number.
 * I'll try to clean it up. Don't worry, I will just try to rewrite it. There is too much PoV, and the prose is terrible is some places. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  05:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome friend. There is some work to do, but overall I think it's OK. What I really doubt now, I know that "popular" is a peacock but I've added it back for now. The case is that going through her career section, we see that she has many commercial failures to her credit, and writing that she is popular is really needed now. I'll think of a better idea meanwhile. For now, nobody of these annoying FA reviewers are reading the page ;) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just surprised that you really wonder that. She is definitely one of the leading. Like Rani, Preity and Aish. And I was really skeptical about adding popular, as it's a peacock, so it's OK now. Apart from that, she hasn't had so many hits but she was critically acclaimed. And I think she is one of the few actresses who could remain popular and in the mainstream after working in films like Omkara. For example, Tabu, was never in the mainstream. Kareena is. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, but I moved it even before looking at the ref again. Because, what is Kambakth? There is no such word in Hindi as far as I know. There is "Kambakht", and in our case "Kambakht Ishq", which means "unfortunate love". I didn't even have to ask my mom for help. It's a very famous phrase in Hindi. It's likely to be a spelling mistake I think. In any case, it will get clear when the film receives its entry on IMDb and indiaFM.
 * As for the RSes. I personally do trust planet bollywood and apunkachoice. They are "non-RS"es according to guidelines of some editors, but the disclaimers clearly state everything about the sites.
 * As for Anil Kapoor's page - looks better. Still needs ref formatting, correction overall, and career expansion. The career section is so brief. I'm now working on Salman's page. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SRK&Kajol.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SRK&Kajol.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews and Taran Adarsh
I had a long an tiring discussion with one editor on the Peer review page, Peer review/Preity Zinta/archive1

And now, there is a new forum Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics...

I would really appreciate your intervention. Please participate.... Regards .... Shahid •  Talk 2 me  12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to my friend
Heyyyy!!! How are you?

No, have not seen yet, but I will definitely see that on friday if I find some tickets tomorrow. I don't care for critics. I always watch films regardless of critical reception more so when it comes to the queen Madhuri. And I own the Jab We Met DVD now he he he ;) I like the film, especially the first half when Kareena keeps annoying Shahid in the train with her stories, and when she loses the train twice!!!! Very entertaining!

Have seen the Tashan promos. Looks promising. And I am a big fan of Akshay since the days of Khiladi. They had many good films together, especially Yeh Dillagi. Where have you seen The Last Lear promo?? I saw it the other day on youtube but it's removed now. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No I haven't. I'll go to the YRF site later, yeh that's really an accomplishement. Yeh the DVD is probably pirated, but does it matter? The matter is that I have, LOL.. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, there is no really prevention of using an image, no matter what it is, but the best way to use an image is definitely to add an image that provides context to the article. See Zinta's image from KHNH. The film described as a tearjerker, and the image illustrates it perfectly with this scene where Zinta and SRK are all crying. Another image from KANK shows Zinta as a beautiful and fashioned young Indian woman, as states the article. So I would definitely suggest you to add an image where she's portrayed as a bubbly, noisy girl. It will provide context perfectly. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Below average = flop
 * average = average (just recovered its costs, not a success)
 * above average = moderately successful (recovered costs and done additional moderate good business)
 * semi hit = hit
 * hit = hit
 * super hit = hit/blocjbuster

..... Average is of course not a general flop, but not a hit either, and in nyway can't be considered a success. But I have no problem with you adding the "moderately successful" back. Go ahead:)
 * Regards. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Rani_Mukerji.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rani_Mukerji.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kapoor
Sorry to say that, but with every day, Kapoor's page looks like a big fansite. You have to tone it down asap. I'm trying to do that. As you know, there were some guys who questioned Preity Zinta's neutrality. I shut their mouth very well with this. Now I suggest you to do the same. For example, you say that she won favorable reviews for her item number (which can instantly kill someone... favorable reviews for an item number is perhaps too much), but it's OK if that is, as I know now, a majority opinion. I personally know that she was criticised very much for that, as there were many comparisons with the original version, and even Sunidhi the singer admitted that she was displeased with the pictuarization. I personally think it's silly to say that, as we call her, "one of the leading actresses", is praised for an item number. And in fact, it didn't consolidate her status as did Beedi for Bipasha. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also removed the silly para in "in the media" section. Her box office achievements are perfectly shown in the career section, and that she maintains popularity despite generally poor collections at the box office, mentioned in the lead.
 * Did she attend some film festival? Do you have some notable humanitarian cause which she supported (to the commitments section)? I can't find nothing. Plus, as per WP:SEEALSO you'll have to remove the see also section, unless you have more than two lists with Kapoor. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * yeh I suggest you to prove your claims with more refs, and if it supports the majority opinion, so great. As for the awards box, it was not my decision and I'm still not sure about that. I think Kareena was involved in some good humanitarian causes. I'll definitely help you. Enjoy your film! Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note about the awards box. On the page of Jolie etc, there is an awards box, and it represents the whole awards section for Jolie on Wikipedia. I mean, her awards are mentioned only on her article, there is no separate page for her awards;all her awards are mentioned in this section, and the writers preferred to format it in boxes. In our case, there are daughter articles for awards, so the boxes are wholly redunant and unnecessary if there is an award page, because it belongs there (on the awards page. Yet, I don't intend to remove all the boxes right now. I have to consult someone else. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. When I added reviews for Zinta, I just added whatever I found in every newspaper, I didn't choose the best, and I immensely appreciate you for doing the same. What we see here, is definitely an average response. Comparisons in such cases are inevitable. This, "Kareena Kapoor's much-awaited portrayal of Helen's groovy number, Yeh mera dil is hot but not blazing. Bebo looks super sexy in gold but the hyper dance movements don't do her any justice." - this is also quite average. Till now, the overall response is average. We can write, "Kapoor was generally well received, but comparisons with the original version tended to criticise/to claim that the original version was better/that she did not do as well as did Helen"
 * In this case, a critic quote is perhaps too much. There is no need to add reviews, only a description of the reception. After all, it's just an item number, and did nothing to her success as an actress. I don't think that it's a big deal, I suggest you to check, (not to make here analysis - it's tiring) other performances. I strongly doubt that someone questions its neutrality, it was just that some editors were keen to annoy me. I just questioned the neutrality of this particular item number reception (IMHO, it's anyway not needed), Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What? You must be kidding. "Omkara, Dev & Jab We Met"????
 * She won awards for Omkara and Dev (when an actor is nominated for an award, the majority opinion is almost surely to be positive), and Jab We Met was immensely praised and a super hit as well (see BOI), LOL. Do it with Fida if you want, but "Omkara, Dev & Jab We Met"? LOL. Tell me that you were kidding me, please. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At times, I hate "Yash Raj Films". Akshay Kumar should have been a major part of it during these years. He was brilliant in Yeh Dillagi, and they didn't even sign him after that, although he is a great-looking guy, and he is good in both dramatic, romantic, comic and action films. I'm also angry that he turned down Baazigar, which definitly would have consolidated his status in Bollywood. Abbas Mustan liked him, but he didn't want a negative role. He's really stupid (but he is my favourite actor) :). And SRK walked away with the cake... God! And now they got that they miss him, and only when he's emerged a great commercial success they sign him when he is already 40.
 * Also, Kareena turned down KHNH and Page 3.....???
 * And Rani, she is amazingly stupid too..:) to turn down the lead in a big Hollywood film (The Namesake), and for what? for KANK? Where she didn't stop crying... And which was criticised all over... That's a shame. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to find more reviews for Don. The MO is still average to negative. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in general (without any relation to Helenji), we have 3 positive out of 8, which is difficult, but yes, let's write it what I suggested... I don't know if other agree to that. Iguess I gotta go for a few mins. One minute and I'm here. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Added. I thought to add "that the original version was better." but looking at the reviews, critics didn't claim that Helen was better, but that Kareena was not as good as Helen, so I added "she did not perform the item number as well as did the original performer". I'm still thinking of a better way to write it.

As I said, I don't make a big deal of that, because: A) saying that she is not better than Helen (the queen of item numbers), is not a shame. In fact, nobody expects leading actresses in Bollywood to perform Item numbers" well. B) That's just an Item number, and I hope that neither Kapoor nor any of our popular actresses today, will be known as "Item girl". LOL...

Any comments with this version? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How have you been?
 * I removed the "List of People from Mumbai"... non-notable.
 * According to the ploicy, "See also section should ideally not ... include links that are only vaguely related to the topic"
 * As you see, both Preity, Rani, Kareena etc appear there, but tomorrow Kareena can think, "Oh I'll better move to Kolkata", that's why it's not relevant. Also List of Pepsi spokepersons... LOL, the same case.
 * BTW, I've lived there. In Kolkata and Mumbai, before I left.:)
 * Regards. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OOOOhhh it's Khoon Bhari Maang, one of her finest performances. I created the article for the film! Rekha won the Filmfare best Actress Award for this film. A great film.
 * Yeh but I was born in Israel and lived there for almost 4 years!!! My parents were there because of My dad's business. Due to sircumstances I'm now in Melbourne (a wonderdul, beautiful city -- there are man many Indians there), but I'll return to India in one year or so I hope.
 * Zinta????? Your surname is Zinta? Are you Rajput or something? Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's great!
 * BTW, we were talking about YRF and you sent me a message which wasn't replied. I also think Rani has had a bad year since 2006. Kank was bad and Baabul flopped. This year was terrible, with TRRP and LCMD being horrible, and in Saawariya she was completely wasted. As for Preity, she had a bad year in 2006, as KANK and Jaanemann did nothing to her, although I liked her perf in the former. JBJ was horrible (perhaps the most horrible of YRF this year), but The Last Lear has got very positive reviews, and was very well recognised internationally; maybe when it releases properly, it will do even more to her. She has also starred in 9 time national film award winning director Jahnu Barua's Har Pall, which is great and I can't wait for it!!! It is sure to be a realistic romance. Barua is a very experienced filmmaker, and I think that's what Preity needs the most, a good director who will push her towards real cinema and acting, and not decorative stupid roles like in Jaanemann and JBJ. On the other hand Rani keeps with YRF and plays an angel.... But I definitely think that she is a good actor. I've never been a great fan of hers, but her performances especially in Saathiya, Yuva and Black are mind-blowing, that's why I like her. And as you said, Preity shows potential, and that is perfectly seen in choosing her roles now. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WOW there are manyyy... When I went to the JWM first show, half the cinema spectators were not Indians. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PS have you heard that Zinta was cast in Deepa Mehta's Heaven on Earth (film)? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL;) well it's difficult to compare actresses today. Every actress makes it in her own way. I really hope Kareena will keep on doing well; because, as said once Bette Davis, "if you're not a commercial star, you won't achieve the deserved recognition for your acting abilities". Kareena was lucky in terms of critical success, but to go further and prove more and become as it's called - "legendary", I think commercial success is needed. Because, as you know, people usually say, "Kareena is a flop actress" rather than saying that she is telented, while Rani is always called "talented" and not a hit actress. Believe me, if Black wasn't directed by Bhansali and didn't star Big B and Rani, it wouldn't make the same business and impact in terms of acclaim. When you have more audiences, you have more praise for your less commercial films. People ususally are not big fans of art and serious cinema, but because all of them liked Bhansali (after BO successses like HDDCS and Devdas) and the legend Amitabh (after BO successes of 35 years LOL) and the fresh star Rani (after Hum Tum and Veer Zaara), Black got the whole hype and hoopla in terms of acclaim. But take now Urmila, she made the best performances, in the highest league, but because she was stuck by it from the beginning, and had not so big commercial success, she is so underrated, and performances like Bhoot, Ek Haseena thi, Pinjar and Tehzeeb have been strongly and unkindly unnoticed and forgotten. The same implies to Tabbu. That's why I think commercial success is always needed first. That's why for example Shabana Azmi played little roles in films like Amar Akhbar Anthony, to be noticed a an actress in the art cinema area, and that's why Karisma won popular awards for Fiza. Because she was a super star and she had many fans. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been noticed


 * As for Preity, she was always noticed for her versatility, from Sangharsh to KK to CCCC to DHT, and at the same time had BO successes with Kya Kehna and Soldier. The Dharma and YRF days gave her big successes, popularity, stardom and completely consolidated her status as an actress, (although she did not get as good roles as b4 IMO). But Jaanemann and JBJ were annoying -- so bland, boring and small characters, which almost ruined her status. That's why I hate YRF at times, they even underrated her and gave her this stupid role in JBJ. Thanks God that at the same time she decided that it's time to come into her own, with something new. She tries to combine now both commercial and art cinema. She has the satatus, she is popular and considered a good actress with some memorable roles to her credit, having worked with the best directors, but she had no real opportunities like Ash had for example (it was always Ash who got the really best roles with filmmakers like SLB and Rituparno Ghosh:-\), to make it in art cinema, in even stronger and more powerful roles. I'm happy that she turned towards neo-realistic cinema. I hope to see results:).


 * What do you think about my analysis Rahul Zinta? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeh
Yeh as I told you the Dharma and YRF days gave Preity more popularity and success rather than strong powerful roles. In 2002, she was already very very popular, she was everywhere in the news, and was always described as popular, bubbly and a brilliant actress as well. But now she is mainly described as superstar, stylish and glamorous. YRF underrated her as an actress, that's what I strongly feel. Rani got a role like LCMD (which failed anyway) while Preity got JBJ. They didn't care for her talent but for hits. With every year they gave her less and less. VZ was somehow OK, Salaam Namaste was also OK and she was good, but JBJ proved to be a disaster. Also Karan, he gave her KANK... And although I liked very much her perf, she had got a very little scope to herself. Perhaps that's the reason to the turning point. That's a shame. I also think Urmila deserved to win all the awards; she was superb! It was IMO even better than Rani's perf in Black. It's not that Preity didn't deserve. I think she did, but the matter is "who deserved more and who deserved less and Urmi definitely deserved the most. But I definitely think Preity deserved some awards for Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, Dil Hai tumhara and Armaan, her best perfs I've seen so far. These are the films because of which I became a fan.

In 2005, Shilpa was a disaster at these times (I mean, commercially). She was completely unnoticed. That's why Phir Milenge did not do so much for her. That hurts. I personally have always liked her and believed in her potentiial, since the days of Baazigar, Mein Khiladi Tu Anari and Aao Pyar Karen. And Phir Milenge just freaked me out. I couldn't believe. WOW!!!

As for Kajol, I can't really say that she was bad in Fanaa. The film was stupid, yes, but she is a powerful actress. There is something irresistible about her on-screen. Again, the matter is "who deserved more and who deserved less and Kareena definitely deserved for Omkara. Oh and Bipasha was fine in Corporate. What did you think about it? What I can't get is what exactly Aishwarya did among the nominees list. LOL!!!!!

Sorry, don't believe in numerology, and your last example was a perfect example why I don't. :)

Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)