User talk:Jatinram

Welcome
Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

India quick links
utcursch | talk 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Rajesh Khanna
Hi! Your recent edits to Rajesh Khanna are not encyclopedic in nature -- they reflect a fan's point-of-view. Please see WP:NPOV. Thanks. utcursch | talk 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna
Dear Jatinram, I cleaned up the Rajesh Khanna article again. You can't use the article to express your love of this star. It has been written in such a way that even someone who hated Rajesh Khanna -- someone who thought Amitabh was 100% better, say -- would agree that the article was accurate. Write for your enemies, not your friends.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to practice on articles about forgotten stars of the past, stars whom you don't like as much. The work needs to be done, and it would be easier to be neutral. Zora 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Dear Sir/Madam,

First of all I would like to clear the point that I have not expressed my love to Rajesh Khanna. I have been watching his films for the last four decades since Aradhana, Haathi Mere Saathi Era. And it is my inner feelings that no article has been written till date exactly analysing his real biography. Usually all media people used to write about him in such a way that Rajesh Khanna's career means from 1969 to 1974. But the fact is that 1976 onwards (Mehabooba onwards-- followed by AmarDeep, Thodi si Bewafaii, Agar Tum Na Hote, Dard, Avattar, etc. till 1990s)he has shown his ability of versatile performance in a much better way, which the salable media world often try to overlap. So I think that since the Wikipedia is a website wherein facts are mentioned, I can express my views through it. You have very clearly mentioned that "It has been written in such a way that even someone who hated Rajesh Khanna -- someone who thought Amitabh was 100% better, say -- would agree that the article was accurate". So where does biasedness come? I surprised that on 9th November, 2006, it has been included in your wikipedia as toto (with minor editing)but after two or three days, it has been edited in such a manner that the total page about Rajesh Khanna seems valueless in comparision to that form I sought before my editing. What is the reason behind this God knows. May be influence of the so called Big B is also present here like other media world.


 * Jatinram, you can't put your personal beliefs in the encyclopedia. If you want to do that, you have to get your own web page. All this encyclopedia does is report facts on which everyone agrees, and, if there are controversies, report what each side of the controversy believes. All of this must be supported by references. If there is disagreement, we can't tell readers what to believe; we just give them the information and references they need to make up their own minds.


 * Stating your own beliefs about Rajesh Khanna as if they were facts is not allowed. Saying that there is a conspiracy to promote Amitabh and oppress Rajesh Khanna is YOUR belief; I've never heard of anyone else who believes this. If there were many thousands of people proclaiming a conspiracy, we could report on their point of view, but since it's just YOU -- your views are not notable. If I believe that the moon is made of panir, but no one else does, then my belief doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Zora 07:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Then who will not believe that his career was still on full swing during the period mentioned by me. Only Box office success is not the alone criterion to judge a star. Are the films like Avattar, Souten, etc. not the Super Hit films? You are talking about fact and I have written the fact also in my write up. Where does the controversy arise? You may edit some portion, but not the whole article in such a manner to give it a valueless shape. If I am wrong, then how had it published in toto on 9th November, 2006.


 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia. If you removed the whole Khanna article and replaced it with obscenities, that would be "published" -- and it would stay that way until someone else noticed the vandalism and fixed it. So no one made any decision to accept your writing. It's as if you wrote in chalk upon a wall. Someone else can erase it and write something else. In this case, other editors HAVE looked at the dispute and agree that your edits are personal opinion and should not stand. The other editors, and the encyclopedia policies, support my stand here. Of course, you can keep restoring your edits, and we can keep removing them, until you eventually get tired of it and stop. But before we get to that point, how about working on some other articles? For instance, if there are Khanna films that don't have articles, you could try writing those articles. It would mean using the Internet to do research. Do you think you can do that? Zora 08:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do not know that under what logic you are presuming that your editing is perfectly alright, but I reiterate that I have not written the same in a fan's point of view; because I only want to signify the fact that Rajesh Khanna's career was much glorious during 1980,s and 1990,s as well as one of the Top most Stars and an unparallel Actor, so I repeatedly used the sentence "unsuccessfully tried to side line Khanna". Rather he should have been appreciated by people that for earning money only he never compromised with cheapness and maintained his dignity in powerful sober social films as a most versatile Actor, also in the era of action, violence, sex, etc.

Further, there is an article in Wikipedia about Dilip Kumar, wherein it has been mentioned that this article is written in a fan's point of view; but it exists in the website. Then why only the article on Rajesh Khanna is being cutrailed in so bad manner. At least the write up prior to my editing should exists.

Under what circumstances, the article has been edited in such a bad manner, I understand better, but when the whole world has lost its status in all manner and prefers the cheapness, then nothing can be done. When the Padmashree, Padmabhushan, Doctorate Degree, etc. are distributed in a baseless manner; then the day will come very soon when all awards will lost their significance and they will be available in local markets as Potato. Thanks and no further futile discussion about my Extraordinary Write Up. Already it has been published in so many places including in Wikipedia. Further, I have already written so many articles on the Films of Mr. Khanna in IMDB.

Just now I watched that again some of my edited portions were cleaned up, which I edited keeping in view the facts only e.g. he has performed in Tagore's song FREE OF COST; tried to side line Khanna; etc. Moreover, names of additional awards conferred to him are also vanished. What is your intention I failed to understand? Are these not facts?