User talk:Dwaipayanc/Archive 31

My take
Hello again!

I just thought of this so much, and after so many thoughts I decided to tell you what I think. IMO, sister pages are unnecessary. The point is, Zinta's article is only 53 KB long. I know you want the article as short as possible, but actually it is not a big deal today. After checking that, I noticed that the sister page has only 7 KB of additional info. It can easily be shifted to the article. I think all the info about her must be mentioned in her article. Readers usually get too lazy to read additional pages. Zinta is not Leonardo Da Vinci, who has a page of 100 KB long, and the info that featured in her sister page is not irrelevant at all. Jolie's page for example, is 71 KB long, everything is mentioned in her article. I don't see why Zinta can't have a similar page of only 60 KB. The Bharat Shah case, defamation case and the alleged affair all can be written very well on the original page. With some good c/p it can look very interesting and readable. As I see now these sections, they miss so much of info and in its current status, they're terrible. it's even better to remove it altogether if it is mentioned like this. For example, it is written: "Zinta said that it not only affected her personally but professionally" ??? And where is it mentioned that she was affected personally? That's what I'm talking about.

I think we can add it back easily, inplementing your changes. I also think that the early life section is so brief. We get nothing about her childhood. Look this version. I know it wasn't the best version of the early life section, but at least it introduced all the aspects of her chilfhood and early life. She was an outdoor girl; she was playing with her brothers all the time, instead of playing with her contemporary girls; she was extremely naughty and was a good student. And now, nothing of this is mentioned or clear. I think quote re her father's death is very very important. On Jolie's page, there are so many quotes, and the prose is still brilliant. Her bitterness toward her father is very well written. Her early life, status at school, interests etc... WOW! That's what I dream to have on Zinta's page. I don't think an FA is the best thing we can get from this article. I want people to get the best info about her. This sentence, "According to her, as a child groomed in an army household, she learnt the principles" - even that was removed. And it hurts. I may be not such a good writer, but I think all of that can be added somehow. I think you can help me. Take your time. We don't have to hurry.

The article is no longer informative or readable, and that upsets me so much. Let's remove this sister page firend, please. I haven't touched it, and didn't add nothing. And I'm not going to edit the original page, because I promised to you. The problem is that so many editors assume bad faith on me now. But it's not right. They just automatically preceived me as a bad editor, and automatically preceived the page as a full rubbish, while it is inspired by other FAs.

One week ago, some user said that he was editing the page and addressing concerns for 30 minutes, while he clearly blanked half of the early life section. As for the personal life and media, I like it in its version on the sister page. With some good copyediting (not removal of content) it can look brilliant on the original page.

I was forced to leave you this message. I'm not as good writer as you are. You are the only one I rely on at the moment. And you are responsible for so many FAs. Just look at the Jolie page. I get so jealous and sad at the same time, when I'm looking at it. What do you think about this article? I was thinking so much before sending this message to you. And I hope you don't get angry. I hope you understand me, and don't react like: "Oh he's so bothersome and nuisance. You know what? Do whatever you want. I'm going!" Please don't get angry with me. I need your help.

My really best regards to you. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  02:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey again!


 * Thanks for enouraging me, and not getting angry (something I was really concerned about).


 * Now, Jolie is definitely a personality whose extra-acting life generates more interest than Zinta's extra-acting life, for the simple fact that American celebrities have wider recognition worldwide, but that doesn't mean that Zinta's page has to be smaller. Moreover, Zinta's extra-acting life is also very well reported in the Indian media. I strongly disagree with her controversies being written in two lines. It gives so little of info, and comes to the extent that the prose doesn't flow, and makes it look even unnecessary whatsoever. Here are the examples: "In 2005, Zinta denounced a short video clip allegedly depicting her in nude." - it looks so non-notable and superfluous there. And this: "In December 2006, Ness Wadia was reported to have attacked construction workers at Zinta's residence in Bandra, injuring a woman and a child. Zinta reacted angrily to these rumours, strongly denying the allegations." - that's all? That's what we get from such a famous controversy? Again looks non-notable, and creates another problem with the flow.


 * The alleged affair and especially the Bharat Shah case are some of the biggest controversies of Zinta, and the Bharat Shah is even one of the biggest in Bollywood. And now it makes the impression that they were little, poorly publicised cases, when we know that it's not true.


 * I also think that daughter pages are good (that's why I've created so many award pages). But this one has only 7-8 KB of additional info (and important info...). That's so unnecessary, and will look way better on the original page. I was OK with reducing them to their current look on the daughter page, but making them 2 lines of info, is an exaggeration. It may have looked fan-cruft in the FAC version, but now, in the daughter page - they look great. Daughter articles are always encouraged when dealing with a longish article. But again I repeat, there is not so much of additional text on this daughter page. And I have nothing to add to that. It only needs a good copy-editing, to make it more readable. I beseechingly ask you to remove it. Please think of this. I'm looking the personal life and media sections, and it makes me feel desperate.


 * Please do read the Jolie article. Her early life has no relation to her being a personality whose extra-acting life generates more interest. Early life has to be well written. I want to expand the early life section of Zinta. Why can't we add back that "as a child groomed in an army household..."? It says now, "She was interested in writing poetry and in sports, particularly basketball" - when it clearly can't come all together. She was a very good sportsperson, and was always playing with her brothers. Please have a look at the sources. Two quotes are so important to me. The one of her father's death, and the one of her take on her infrequent visits home (which also gives a mention of her being populat at school. On Jolie's page it's written: "and her feeling of isolation among the children of some of the area's more affluent families. She was teased by other students who also targeted her for her distinctive features, for being extremely thin, and for wearing glasses and braces." - WOW! I'm just trying to make you think of it.


 * Her career section is still very short unfortunately... Needs reviews and more info. You said, "Also, the more incorporation of extra-acting life, the harder it would be to keep the tone down." - so what's the problem? Let's work on it. You have already toned it down I think. I repeat, it looks good on the daughter article, and I think it should come back.


 * Have seen OSO... A good Masala flick, and I'm mainly impressed with Deepika, the leading actress. I believe that she is the future top star. She is great.


 * So lastly, my main problem, this unnecessary daughter page. In the FAC, nobody said that there was too much fan-cruft. Not at all. The reliability issues, the non-notable critics, and the writing were there. Nobody had any problem with the controversies. I'm really a bit desperate. I still continue the trust on you. I really do. My only request is to remove the daughter page. Please think of it.


 * All the best, friend. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  04:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey friend!


 * I think you're misunderstood. When I say "Please remove the daughter page" - I mean, "please re-add all the controversy stuff to the article as it appears on the daughter page".


 * I really think these sections looks terrible now, and we only have to restore them in their daughter page version. It's not that we have to look for it in the history. You've reduced it, but I respecrfully disagree. Controversies cannot be written in this way. I see no problem with quote about Marc Robinson. Just restore these sections, please. All the facts of her being forthright, of her home in Mumbai, etc. are notable, and have to be in the original page. As for the controversies, as I said, they look so superficial in their current version. I won't do it myself - I promised you. :)


 * Now, regarding the daughter page, I have absolutely no problem with this daughter page at all. It can remain, and then, whenever we have something considerable to add, we can easily add it in the daughter page, if it doesn't suit the original page's standards. What do you say?


 * The matter now is to add back all the "personal life" and "media" content as it appears on the daughter page (I'm not talking about early life. I'm somehow OK with the early life section now), to make some good c/e (not removing content), and without any doubt it will be ready for an FA. The daughter page can remain. No problem.


 * I still keep the trust on you. Believe me that I do:) My really best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool
LOL! No probs. Will be changed to "were". I've added some minor details re home which must be here. That's insignificant I think (in terms of length).

Thanks for understanding me. I have absolutely no problems with daughter pages.

I wanted to tell you something re Bharat Shah case. As I said, I think it has to come back. It is very short now, and Zinta's page (who was the only film personality not to have turned hostile.) must introduce it in the most informative way.

I do think that this can be removed: "who told her that she would have to bear the consequences if she did not pay up. Zinta testified that she had confided in Nazim Rizvi about the threatening incident: 'He told me not to worry and that everything would be alright. He gave me his cell phone number and told me to call him if I have any further problems.'"

But the rest stuff has to be there. It is very poor now. I'm not saying that because I've worked very hard on it, but because it is important for the article. Plus, the defamation case the same thing. Controversies with courts, testimonies or whatever have to be super detailed. And as you said in the edit summary, the BSC was a very well publicised contro. Many questions pop-up while reading it. Who is Bharat Shah? Which connections? etc etc.

Thanks for understanding. I'll come later. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is starting to have a new dynamic. It looks better. I've added some info to the Bharat Shah case. Without quotes or testimonial issues, and it looks better. Also we have to avoid phrases like "SRK and Salman turned hostile." it can sound bad to those who are fans of these two.


 * Re Krishnamurthy, I just looked at it, and there was something wrong with it, somehow superficial. So I've added one sentence. This looks nice now.


 * The defamation case has to be expanded and then there are three major concerns. A) The career section. B) Reliability. C) last c/e.


 * P.S: Saawariya sucks! ;). Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Down the last year, we all have used boxofficeindia.com. Every Bollywood-related page uses it. I don't care what Sarvagnya or whatever his name is thinks. I have the support of Nichalp and Spartaz. If ToI can use boxofficeindia as a source of information for its articles, shouldn't Wikipedia do it? I thik we can contact the site. I don't trust IBOS. But I do trust BOI. All the claims are right and were always approved in the media. Anyway, we have to think of a good way. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see these links Dwai . My question is, can this ref qualify as a reference for the previous statement of "a contemporary romance which depicts the routine life of Indian youth"? What do you think? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think about adding this so called POV to the DCH article (with refs), and without a ref to Zinta's one? It just takes a lot of space, these refs. I think story lines, characters etc should be written and referenced on the film articles, and little briefs on actor pages shouldn't be referenced. Anybody who disagrees, can be referred to the film article. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is this Portal:India/Quiz? Looks so entertaining! Shahid •  Talk 2 me  01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it's OK that I joined... I have a new question there. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  02:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you busy nowadays? You just left and it's strange to me. How are you? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah OK enjoy your travelling :) I'll be waiting! Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IN ships in Kolkata
The IN ships will be in Kolkata on 15th till 3pm. If you can take some photos it would be great. Chanakyathegreat 04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, hows everything... Nice to see you active — Lost (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the India article seems to be a hotbed right now. We need some cool heads like you there:). Hope the real life issues will sort out soon. I am quite busy these days so hardly manage to log in.. — Lost (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For trying to bring some sanity and civility to the India page discussion. I'm taking a time out from there, and hope some of the others who are caught up in the rioting do too. The bad blood there goes a long ways back - it needs some help and some time. &#2384; Priyanath talk 18:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help with Jagadish Chandra Bose
You may have noticed that Jagadish Chandra Bose recently had a GA review and it failed. The review comments are available at: Talk:Jagadish_Chandra_Bose. I have tried to address as many concerns as I can and still working on some. But there are a few areas which need input from the earlier references that were used.

I see that you contributed significantly to this article earlier. I'd request your help to address the concerns mentioned in the GA review. Let's collaborate to make this article a Good Article. Arman (Talk) 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
Thanks for the peer review. I think it's good we can address things before taking the article to an FAC.

After we had discussed sources endlessly, Sarvagnya claimed they're non-RSes, when actually indiantelevision, boxofficeindia, bollyvusta are reliable and you even proved that. I'm not going to concede about these sources, just because this user disagrees.

I guess we have to remove this "regret" quote. But I think we have to find a way to write that she experienced loneliness, that she was away from family, that she was popular at school. All these background notes should be mentioned there I think.

OK I guess we'll discuss the rest there. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great great great. Thanks! Sounds good. Only two points: boxofficeindia hasn't yet been declared as non-RS. As for IMDb, have no problem using it. Just, is it considered RS? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta
Just a quick question. Do we have the mention of "catalogs" in the given reference? - KNM Talk 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. It was her first real modeling attmpt (Beside commercials. That's why some sources say: she started her career as a commercial actress and model). The reference was there but I forgot to add that before to this specific sentence. I've seen the show myself. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm usually nice to those who are nice to me. If you see some comments, you will understand what I'm talking about. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think IMDb is reliable, after reading the policy, but can you contact boxofficeindia too? It is used here more than any other source, and it will take ages to clean it. I haven't yet talked to Spartaz. I'll ask him. After seeing boxofficeindia in Times of India, I'm sure of its reliability. I also think that taking data from different sources makes it quite inconsistent. I hope we get a solution asap. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are FU images not permitted? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See how it's used here. Can't we do the same? It's a recently promoted FA. I really doubt these users' claims are 100% right. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to do my best. Will use it as a template. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please try to contact boxofficeindia. As I said, it's used thousand times more on Bollywoodrelated pagge. And who knows, maybe they'll update their disclaimer etc. I don't think bollyvista has problems but I have no problem with removing it. Only that, seeing their self info, they seem to be reliable, isn't it? You've done a great job investigating RSness of sources. Why can't we rely on that? I think it's sufficient. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But indiantelevision.com is clearly reliable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it's reliable for sure. I'm not concerned about it. I've replaced bollyvista already. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Re boxofficeindia.com.
 * That's what Nichalp and Spartaz told me to do, to find an evidence. Even blogs are mentioned in RSes. But it's not that it's just mentioned. It is used as source of information for these sites. It's clearly written: "According to boxofficeindia.com". Nichalp already suggested to create an article. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL hehe yeh, thanks for the message, I really should try to enjoy my work. It's just that there is very important data from this source; while googling it, my fingers were shivering (just kidding ;)). I guess, now I know how difficult it is. But I'm enjoying. When I have the help of great and nice editors like you, who don't try to bother me or piss me off, and just want to help, it's OK.:) Though I also can be angry at times as you have already witnessed several times.:) I hope it doesn't give you bad impression of me.


 * As for boxofficeindia, I think we should contact them asap. I'm sure of their reliability. I always was. Even before discovering these sources. They're so correct, always. In the media, everything always turns out to be right eventually. Tomorrow there will be an update of it (like always). My best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, have you seen Portal:Quiz? I'm in! Amarrg answered my question... Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Minor concerns:
 * Indian film actresses . Do you think it's right to link it like this? It does not direct us to the correct and relevant page.
 * In the infobox, as I saw on Jolie's article, she is called Actor and not Actress. Should we do the same? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be a link to Bollywood in somewhere in Zinta's lead? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  08:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, so sorry, I didn't notice your message to me because there were some more new messages after you. So it's Ok, take a break. Meanwhile I'll try to do whatever possible in regard to reliability issues, but I think that we've cleaned it very very well. Look, there are no unreliable sources except IMDb. As for IBOS and of course boxofficeindia - I'm not going to give up.:) These sources (especially the latter) have always been considered credible sources. So many people use it, and even newspapers like ToI. I asked Sandy to help with some MoS probs yesterday. I think it's improved a lot. Though not perfect, it's good. Thanks, best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)