User talk:Pa7/Archive 4

HI
Hello Pa7. I just wanted to say that I have created a page about the film Khoon Bhari Maang. I did it in a very brief and fast way. So If it`s not a big trouble for you, could you please check the page? --Shshshsh 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey
The only reason I made a separate section for it was only because it was all congested in trivia. And since it says polls, people know they can go against the facts since they are unfair to some. But the truth is and we all know, Rani is No.1 today. Now, on Julia Robert's intro, it says somewhat like that and it has a reference to the magazine Hollywood's Reporter which is just like Forbes and it provides rankings. Maybe things were different when Sridevi and Dixit were No.1, there were no magazine rankings but today, people are into statistics and the section polls provide that. Again, polls are everywhere on wikipedia. Like on Jenny Garth's page. It gives various rankings about her on VH1 Top 100 Greatest Teen Stars and on the FHM 100 Sexiest Women of 2000 with references. I don't feel there's anything wrong with that as long as they are referenced. Again, I haven't put any Stardust rankings, I have its magazine at home. But there is no reference for it on the web, thus I didn't put those polls which also states Rani as No.1 for the past three years. Finally, it is official. Filmfare Power List is really prestigious. People from the industry rank the celebrities with fair and calculative ways. I mean for God's sake, there is an award dedicated to the list, given annually at the Filmfare Ceremony to the most powerful person of the industry (whoever is No.1 on that power list each year). So, if you want to argue about this which probably you will. It's better if you bring an admininstrator to this discussion. All Hollywood actresses (Eva Longoria, Cameron Diaz, Jessica Simpson, JLo, I can go on) have polls in their career section or trivia, I don't know why you are so against it with Bollywood people. No harm is done. Wikipedia is not making statements, it's just providing facts. Thank you for listening. - shez_15

Preity Zinta
Hello, Pa7, first of all: good luck with your assignments. Also, I'm trying to open a debate about Zinta's article. If you visit her talk page, you see what we're up to. It'd be most appreciated if you contribute, as I'd really like to remove all the fangush. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi!

I've seen your name all over the talk pages of the Bollywood bios, so I thought you might be the right person to ask, I'd like to request you to have a look at two things -


 * Don - The Chase Begins Again - a lot of new content was added, and not all of it needs to be noted. I mean, we've got pictures of Mercs and all sorts of things in the trivia section, a little odd. Since you started the article, I thought you might be interested.
 * The pages Rani Mukherjee and Preity Zinta both have a lot of discussion going on, which would benefit from more editors looking in. You've contributed on both in the past, so I thought I'd ask you.

Best of luck with all your work!

Best regards, xC | ☎  18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw your talk page. I know which editors you're talking about, and quite frankly this disruption has to end. These articles are not their personal playgrounds. I'd be happy to help you with Don2. If you have the time, please do have a look at Preity Zinta talk, theres discussion going on there about a particular section. Rani Mukherjee could also do with a lookover, a lot of new content has been added, which needs to be sifted through.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone didn't like your note. xC | ☎  15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai is in FAC
The FAC of Lage Raho... has started. Please drop by if you are interested. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pa_7
I`m happy you`re here back. Have you finished already your exams? Best Regards. --Shshshsh 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Oh I only did that because Rani's character name was long. The page looked better organized with a longer line on the top. That's why I didn't change the cast elsewhere on the page. But it's okay if you mind. - shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

languages
This edit has put back incorrect language tags into the article. These lang tags are not the correct representation of her name in the various languages mentioned there. If you have the time, please do have a look. This will be my last edit for a while, good luck if you are working on the articles, and best regards, xC | ☎  05:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Colbert.
Pa_7, Hi. Please when you`ll be here please have a look on Preity`s page and tell me whether you agree to leave it or not and|or why do you think so. It will help me a lot. If you think it is not good or encyclopedical enough, so we`ll remove it. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a cast change
Cast change is when you change the order in the cast list or at the beginning when you imply who's starring. Writing a name one before another is not a cast change. Just in a sentence, it's not necessary to take Saif's name b4 Rani. Plus, Rani Mukerji and Saif Ali Khan sounds better. And if you think that's a cast change, which it's not, then maybe you should change Rani over Preity in the photo on HDJPK. Plz don't get obsessive on trivia sentences at least. And you're the one who's unfair, creating a song box for Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and not for Ta Ra Rum Pum when we both know you've been editing both pages. So plz be fair. You don't have to abuse Rani's name or give it less importance just because you don't like her. Thanks. - shez_15


 * I see now how much you dislike her by what you vandalized on the page. You don't want her to have good movies, fine we'll wait for the official announcement. You wanted her infobox to look unorganized so you put KUCH kUCH HOTA HAI. You even removed the fact that she is playing a sexy look and portraying a modern look. So how does it make sense if she's playing a mother and then in the next sentence, she slimmed down for the role. Why would she slim down for a role of a mother? Plz don't confuse the readers. We're finally improving the page while you want to just vandalize it. Don't next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by shez_15 (talk • contribs)


 * Remarkable, implying that a mother cannot be slim and/or cannot be modern. xC | ☎  05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!
Yes it is so tiring to watch out for all of his edits. It is so unprofessional to emphasize Rani above all the other actors. I like Preity a lot, but it doesn`t mean that she and Rani have to be listed before actors like Sanjay Dutt (like in the case of Om Shanti Om). I don't appreciate this kind of work. Shez has changed the credits of many films describing the summary as "changed Mukherjee to Mukerji". I was shocked by his devious way to make it. We have our rules in Wikipedia and we have to go according to them. Anyway.

By the way, I've created a lot of new pages for Bollywood Movie Awards, so now I'd like to add the awards to the winners' pages. So if you pass thorough, please add them. I hope there is no problem with these awards in Wikipedia.

As for the fashion and design lines in Rani's page. I see you've removed them. If you see Rani's talk page, you'll see I wanted to make the same, but Shez and xC objected.

I'm happy you're here, we can work and collaborate in a good manner. I will archieve the talk page now, thanks. And if you want, you can call me Shahid (my real name) since my user name is a bit difficult to spell. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S: I don`t really understand "The Last Lear". What does the "bad actor" term mean? Is it a villain or not? I looked for it and in every existing source it is written "bad actor". Weird.


 * The list of actors should simply be in alphabetical order, as per surname. Any other form of listing indicates bias and/or reliance on an external list of cast. xC | ☎  05:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's strange!
I really don't get what is the relation of designers and look descriptions to the career section. It ruins the page. Anyway, I don't really want to make edit wars. I've posted a message since those sentences looked like nonsenses, but both Shez and xC objected. I can't fight them everytime. I was very angry with Shez when he deleted part of your message to me. I can't get it.

WOW there are so many films I'm looking forward to. I'm just dying to see Madhuri's new film. I've grown up with her films since the very beginning of her career with films like Tezaab, Mujrim and latter HAHK, Anjaam etc etc. I'm also waiting to JBJ. I'm sure these will be big hits. I like Yash Raj's comedies. As for The Last Lear, I'm really anxious to see Big B's and Preity's performances. I like Ghosh as a director too. Have you seen Raincoat? Aish was brilliant. I believe Preity won't dissapoint. You know, since her debut, she was getting better and better with every year, but in 2005 she dropped a little. She made just 3 films in 2 years, because of the Tsunami incident. It affected her a lot. Chak De India also looks promising. I like the actress Vidya Malvade. I saw her in the movie Inteha, she was really good. Oh yeh, Metro also looks nice, I think Shilpa's years in the industry paid off after CBB. Mmm, Have you seen TRRP? I saw it on thursday, but it wasn't as good as Hum Tum, although I liked the performances.

I'd like to ask you in the case of Preity. What do you think on these sentences. Should they be kept in the article or not.


 * Moreover, Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan. Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit.[65] She is also famous in Europe in countries such as Russia and Holland[66]


 * On January 9, 2007, she was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V. show The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert mentioned her as an important name in Bollywood, while in character, mocked the media coverage of the alleged feud between Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan and stated, "If Preity Zinta is at the party, you better show up!"[63]

We discussed this with xC, but we have never come to a final decision. Your opinion will be very important. Thanks, Best Regards --Shshshsh 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I'll also be honest and tell you, if you haven't seen TRRP, good for you. You lost nothing. There were some nice moments, but the rest was very silly, specially the reality issue.
 * Well I was the one who created this section. As accepted by xC and by me, we decided to change it to In The Media like you said. He opposed to leave Colbert there although I supported to, but we can remove Colbert if you also think it's unneeded. I strongly disagreed with the removal of the Marie Claire magazine, since she is the first Bollywood actress to appear on its cover, which is very popular BTW. It's a good expression of her popularity.
 * In the case of the world success, it wasn't easy to find these references. I realised that this fact appears on the Madhuri Dixit page too, so I put it in Preity's page too, who is also mentioned in the reference twice. I know, no-one can beat Dixit's records down the years but we can just repharse it, Remove the mirrors and that's all. What do you think? It's good to make people aware to the popularity of the actress, whose page they read. We also decided to remove salary. Payment description is really unnecessary (I think you know how many arguments I have had with Shez in this case). As agreed upon, All the rest remains. Honestly, this section is very nice. BTW, what do you think about the awards' new page? Best Regards.--Shshshsh 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Pa_7. I know you're too busy now with the YRF template. I just wanted to ask you, please, when you have time (if you have) reply to my comment and tell me what do you think about the In The Media Section on Preity's page. BTW, you've done a great job with this template. Thanks and Best Regards. --Shshshsh 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes I don't really have a big problem with that, but if we don't use words, it will look a little bit strange, since every other page uses title description, apart from years mark. Yes there are people who think that she had success with Kya Kehna. Other say that she began to succeed only with KHNH. In general, 2003 is considered the big boom of her career. She won awards, she took part in the highest grossing films. Anyway, do whatever you think is good for the page, I trust you. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's great! Completely agree. --Shshshsh 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In a second thought, what do you think about this?
 * 1998-1999; Early career
 * 2000-2002; SBreakthrough
 * 2003-present; Success


 * I tell you because if you say success, and then 2005-present, it seems like since 2005 she hasn't had success anymor. If you don't agree, we put your version. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm quite well with your version. But do you have any phrase for the last 2005-present paragraph? If you don't, so let's implement your vesion, I don't have problem. Best Regards --Shshshsh 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm we can title it as Mainstream cinema or something like this, what do you think?. I don't know why but I'm still not carefree about this. It really seems like: "She had success from 2002-2004, and then, wonder of wonders, she dropped out!"
 * Moreover, if we use some years as a headline, there might be some reason for this. Why do we use them? What do "2005-present" years have in common that we put them together? That's my point.
 * I hope you don't get angry with me due to my insistence. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pa_7 Hi! I've recently posted an important message to Preity's talk page. Please have a look and discuss. I'd like to discuss it in a professional way, since I really consider and appreciate your edits and opinions. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was very angry with Shez when he deleted part of your message to me. - Shez has a habit of deleting messages which Shez doesn't like
 * Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries - discussion has been done to death and can be found in the article talk archives. Page only talks of Bollywood in general, nothing notable is mentioned there about Zinta specifically.
 * she was mentioned on segment "We The Mediator" of popular T.V. show The Colbert Report - massive discussion, can be found in the archives, please do have a look. Unencyclopedic, does not add any value to the article.
 * The section headings are only indicative. I simply followed FA examples such as Angelina Jolie and Diane Keaton, among others. They have years in the section headings, and it seemed to me it made the text more organised. If the years are such an issue, lets just drop them and continue adding content en block.
 * I've posted comments in other sections, please do have a look and thank you for your note. If you're dealing with Bollywood bios, get used to being called a vandal. If we call someone a vandal/troll/counter-productive editor, theres a good chance of disciplinary action being taken. Others manage it for months on end without anything being done. Thats how the bricks are thrown, its nothing to take seriously.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But
Okay fine you're jealous of Mukerji. It's okay. I mean just putting her name before Saif in a sentence, not the cast section, makes you hyper. This shows how much you envy her. But it's okay. Who doesn't? I just wish you come to terms with it soon and overcome your pet peeves. By the way, the career section is there to talk about every aspect of her career and make-up artists, fashion designers are a major part of an actress' success. But you're just not progressive. So let's just keep it simple. And also, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai is written four times in her article, people are not dumb that they would get confused by KKHH and even when they click on KKHH, they are automatically on Kuch Kuch Hota Hai's page. Don't try to act over-smart when you're not. I know you're just trying to make the page look unorganized and messy. But don't worry, I'm here to object to your lame mission. Cool down now. Peace. - shez_15

OK Fine.
Thanks a lot Pa_7, I was a bit worried that you would get angry with me. Now, I'm happy. Tell me please, I know, it's kind of advertisement, but it's a kind of controversy also (I didn't add it, by the way). Don't you think? I wish you all the best, enjoy your journey! Oh yeh and try to overcome your hard jealousy of Mukerji;) LOL. Thank you! Best Regards:) --Shshshsh 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bagbanposter.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bagbanposter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Interesting. Simply because I am on Wikibreak, sections which contain ongoing discussions are archived, without any replies to what I had posted. This is no discussion. Its more like taking lack of opposition as support - this edit. xC | ☎  06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone pointed out on these biopages that every single ref need not be named? Only refs that are called more than once need to have a name. I'm bringing this up here because if I start removing unneccessary ref names, we're probably going to end up with article protection yet again. If you can, please have a look at that. Regards, xC | ☎  06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!
Pa_7, please comment on Zinta's talk page, there is an important comment there by me. It is important, cause if we don't get more opiniond, it could raise to be an edit war. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 10:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!
I'm here to inform you that I've recently expanded the Akshay Kumar career section. I'm a bit concerned whether someone disagrees with my version. So, if you go through the page, have a look please at the career section, and tell me please me what do you think about my new version. I just think that he is very underrated actor. His career section was so generally written and briefly explained, without any chronological order. Hope it is not a big trouble for you as well as not insolence of me to ask you for that. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gossip and Popular Polls
Hi Pa_7 I see you have removed some unencyclopedic content from Zinta's page. Mmm you were right, it looked like a magazine, but now I changed the title to Media Speculation and changed the wording. The references are from Times of India and it is considered as a reliable source rather than a simple gossip.

Now about Rani, I think the page is a bit messy. We have integrated somehow the polls section and now it is put back. There are two problems here: Popular is POV. Polls is unencyclopedic. Even when we had Trivia in the page of Rani and Preity, I have never accepted the idea of putting polls section in Preity's page. Neither in the page nor in the awards page. Now I think it should be integrated into the Media section. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 10:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re
''Zinta has been dating the Bombay Dyeing heir, Ness Wadia since February 2005.[41]. There were various media speculations whether the two will marry or not. There were also rumours circulating that the pair had separated, but Zinta denied these rumours.[42]''

1]It is not media speculation since we have a ref, we should rename that subsection Relationships, since it deals with her relationship with Wadia and speculation about relationships which she has denied.

2]There were various media speculations whether the two will marry or not. -ref?

3]I believe polls should be on the awards page. However Shshshsh insists on putting it in In the media, and I don't have the time to oppose.

As for Mukerji,

1]Her personal life has been shifted above her career, which defies all logic, as well as goes against MOS.

2]Popular polls - popular is subjective. If polls have to be kept in the main article instead of the seperate awards page, then they should be In the media (ref Jolie).

Unfortunately, this page too is an absolute time-sink when it comes to raising objections. I believe it is more beneficial to revert vandalism in the time it takes to explain even the most basic logic on these two pages. Patience is taken of advantage of, and I feel disappointed at noting that.

If you are looking over these pages, I wish you best of luck. I am afraid I can only help directly from mid-June, due to commitments in real life which eat all my time. As of now, I am reduced to RC patrol, at best.

Best regards, xC | ☎  11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I didn't revert your edits yet. But it's referenced, so why are you removing the facts. I would appreciate it if you could shorten it but it's important to discuss career details as Xc said. It shows how much command she keeps that she removed one of her favorite designers from the movie. And how her parents made her do that movie even though she is a grown adult. It's important. So please keep it back if you can. Maybe more appropriately. Thanks. - shez_15

Namesake
Hi Pa7! Tell me please, is The Namesake considered as a Hollywood film? That's my only question..:) Best Regards! --Shshshsh 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
I see you've been busy. I've just seen the Peer Review comments on Peer review/Rani Mukherjee/archive1, and working according to them made a few changes to the article. I won't be changing anything further until some other editors (ahem, ahem) have a look at it.

Could I request you to drop by that page and see if the recent edits were alright? I've got a bit more time on my hands nowadays, so I'm looking forward to helping out on some articles.

Yell on my talk if anything comes up :)

Take care, xC | ☎  07:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
I think you're on vacation right now, hope you're having a great time :)

Just a note, there have been some recent removals of content from Rani Mukerji. While I agree with some of it, such as removing some of the fashion details and other trivial stuff, there have been outright deletions of some worthwhile content as well.

I am concerned that in cleaning up the article we shouldn't throw out useful content. Also, there appears to be a double standard - FA level articles follow one set of rules while Bollywood bios seem to have to adhere to another. I have posted my concerns on the talk page of Rani Mukerji and we would all appreciate your feedback there.

Happy holidays and take care, xC | ☎  08:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Darr dvd cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Darr dvd cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back...Surgery?
surgery?! Are you serious Pa? I'm shocked:(. Please take care of yourself. I wish you speedy and complete recovery, dear. I hope you enjoyed your vocation.

Yes, Haphar made some drastic etits on the page. Like yourself, I also agree with some points. I have posted a message on the talk page.

I saw your edits on the page of Zinta. I must have disagreed with part of your edits. The alleged affair controversy was wholly written by me. It was somehow inspired from articles of Hollywood stars. They have huge controversy sections. Since this alleged affair of Krishnamurthy was a big issue in India, I thought it's good to expand it. I also remember that Plumcouch suggested to expand the controversies, that's why I reverted your edits. We cna't be satisfied with 3 lines about this. However, I removed all the gossip. I removed the gossip of her relationship. But the rest details are important, since they deal with their relationship. I removed the brand ambassador, as you did. I hope you don't get angry.

The Namesake does not interest me anymore. I'm tired to fight with Shez. Rani and Preity are both good actresses, and I'm not interested in telling him this every time. These arguments of who is better are tiresome. He's very busy, so I don't see him very often here.

Now, Pa_7, I repeat and wish you all the best of luck with your surgery. Your health is the most important thing now:). Best regards, --Shshshsh 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hope you recover soon, I have not left the Bollywood articles, just that I mostly work in the 50's to 70's era related stuff. We can discuss what can be put back in the Rani article. Haphar 07:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Hi!

How've you been?

I've found that a lot of the things that so many editors discuss again and again is due to the simple reason we don't have a clear set of policies and/or guidelines related to filmbios.

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject. However heres a page of some of the problems I've come across - User:Xcentaur/Sandbox2. I'd appreciate your comments on its talk page and any suggestions how to get the community to discuss this further.

Thanks, xC | ☎  13:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK fine:)
Hi! I'm OK with it, and I don't really have the time for it... How've you been? How do you feel? Best Regards, --Shshshsh 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Sorry, I just had to revert everything to Xc's version because Haphar had removed most references whereas your version contained those statements, except not having the refs. So, please edit again. Thanks. And yes, I think we should move the Polls to the award section. What say? I think I agree with most of your edits now. And where is Haphar? I thought he was supposed to help since we were in the edit war because of him? Anyhow, let's work this page out. I'm not going to touch it until you guys start editing first. Then I'll suggest or add. Best Regards. - shez_15

Good Job!
Well, I've added the picturisation details but I don't own the CD, so I don't know the length of the song as yet. But I'll add something if I do find the details before anyone else does. Although I don't know if IMDB ratings mean anything, since most users just put a 1 for no apparent reason. I don't know if the ratings should be incorporated into wikipedia. Plus, the number of users keeps changing. Let the ratings remain on IMDB which is in external links of the movie's page. Thanks. - shez_15

Rani Mukerji
Please go on the discussion page and see what I've written. Give your suggestions. Thanks. - shez_15

Cast order
Hi again! We have a problem of casr order.

I got the conclution that IMDB is no longer suitable for wikipedia. Users there endlessly mess with cast. IMDB became popular and now everybody is logged there. There are certain important films which are in advanced production statuses and IMDB hasn't yet added them. The IMDB format was the way of users like Plumcouch and Zora to make Shez understand that we can't credit according to the film credits, but now it changes its credits every week.

Filmmakers play games with cast order. They cast as per seniority, as per appearances order etc. Here on Wikipedia we have to write about a film and give always the credits for the main characters and then the supporting (unless the supporting actress\actor is senior to the main actress\actor in more than 10 years like in case of Devdas). We can't go as per film credits, most of them make people confused. Here on Wikipedia we introduce information for readers, not directors' commitments for their actors.

The fact is that we can't go as per film credits. We don't always know the film credits, and as per the mentioned reasons, it is not good. IMDB is not good format either. Rani Mukerji before Preity Zinta in Veer Zaara, Kareena before Rani in YUVA. That's unbearable. We have to go according to something to prevent wars. We have to find another reliable site, which includes expanded entries for all the Bollywood films. What do you think? Shez already changed the Veer-Zaara page and other pages to IMDB. I think it's unfair, but I also can't revert now.

I also posted a message WikiProject Indian cinema. Have a look and comment please, if you can. Best regards, --Shshshsh 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Picturization
What is the classification of picturization in a song? You put Rani and SRK in Rock n Roll. But Shahid removed. I put SRK and Rani in Where's the Party Tonight? as they are part of the picturization as seen in the hotel room during the music. So, I don't know. You tell me what is picturization. Thanks. - shez_15

I did
I replied, and I'm tired. I displayed my suggestions earlier, and Shez is making new suggestions as if I weren't here. That's not right. Haphar agreed to my ones and Shez requesting a whole revert.

By the way, my previous message to you, if you have the time please have a look. It's supid to put main actors under supporting. IMDB changes its names every day! Really. One week ago Veer-Zaara was like it should be, but someone put Rani first. The day before yesterday, Rani was after Abhi in B&B. Now she is credited before. Kareena is credited before Rani in YUVA. Why? It is not right. For Shez either, but he is satisfied with Rani being before Preity in Veer-Zaara. I think it's not fair. I have sent a lot of messages to users, to WikiProject Bollywoood film etc. My general suggestion is to find another reliable site which has entries for all the Bollywood films which we can use as a crediting template. Best regards, --Shshshsh 16:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah that's what I thought picturization meant but you confused me when you put Rani and SRK in Rock N Roll. Thanks. - shez_15

Jhoom Barabar Jhoom
The movie was nice and I liked it. For me, it was better than TRRP even though there was no special script or a story line which captures you from the outset, but still it was nice. I think both Abhishek and Preity were good. Even Lara Dutta made a great job. The addictive music (especially BNHH), the choreography, the cinematography, the decoration, the views and landscapes and the direction were just brilliant all as one. I enjoyed the film in general. It was a little bit mad and brought something unexpected. I didn't imagine to myself. It could have done better, but I believe it will do well at the box-office. Taran from indiafm can say everything. That's his personal opinion. My favorite part was the clip song of BNHH. How was the film for you? Did you like the story? BTW, I saw the first trailer of Chak The India with Jhoom. Best regards, --Shshshsh 12:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Credits
Hey there,

How've you been? Did your surgery go alright?

I've seen a lot of discussions/rambling/arguments/normal Wikipedia behaviour related to the film credits. Wanted to request your inputs on the same. Lets list in alphabetical order. No doubt this means that roles where certain actors actually have a larger piece of the pie may end up being pushed to the end of the list, but since its in alphabetical order, theres nothing to complain about. Again, IMDB is neither trustworthy nor clear cut about this stuff now, since they've thrown their doors open to everyone. The only other solution I have for this is to list actors in order of appearance. While this might still be an acceptable solution to some, it is difficult to maintain if not impossible, what with the sheer number of movies which would need to be cross checked for appearances. To my mind, alphabetical listing of the cast is the only solution to this bog that we've landed in. Whats your take on this? Or do you have any other suggestion we could look at?

Much appreciated, xC | ☎  07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any way out of this issue except using alphabetical, even though I'm not a big fan of my own idea itself. I'm still looking for a site which is reliable and all parties involved would be willing to accept. As you can imagine, its getting to be quite a task. I'm still looking and it might take a while, I'll definitely drop a line if I get any idea. Take care, xC | ☎  14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Film Credits Part Two
I'm all for alphabetical order too. Only that it looks unorganized since the actors in very small roles will be put at the top. I don't know. My suggestion is to keep with IMDB since it's the largest movie database. And it's already being used. So it's feasible. But for popular movies or movies where people object to IMDB's casting or where people keep changing the cast list everyday, for those movies, we should try to find the cast billing as in the movie and put the internet source on each talk page of every movie, so there is proof of the order. I think this is the best solution. I've already done this for Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega and Veer-Zaara. See the talk pages. So just check it out and tell me if you agree. I think the most problems regarding cast order is with the most recent movies and new movies are easy to find on the net after a week of its release. The articles with the film's actual casting can be A-level articles. I think we can use IMDB casting initially and when the movie releases, we can use the official billing. That's if the IMDB list seems to be unfair. I can find you casting for at least 100 movies if you want me to. But I don't want people to change it to IMDB again once it's found. I don't want someone to walk over my work. So, if every editor can vote, then I can start looking for the official billing on the internet. That's my suggestion. It makes sense. Best Regards, - shez_15

IMDB
Look, IMDB changed its credits again... Zinta is before Mukerji now even in CCCC and KANK. But I changed only for Veer-Zaara and HDJPK where Zinta is the heroine, cause it's not fair. What do you think? I still disagree with IMDB. As you see, now Zinta is credited b4 Mukerji in all of their films together. That's why it's not fair. I think film credits should not be listed alphabetically. That's pathetic. I think there might be a policy for film credits. If not, we need some good site which has its entries for every Bollywood film, and which doesn't change its credits every day. Best regards, --Shshshsh 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi that's me Shshshsh. Here's my new signature, to avoid confusion -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmm since IMDB is not matching, what do you think about indiaFM.com? It has entries for every Bollywood film. It was Plumcouch who suggested me to use indiaFM.com (not for credits, but who knows) -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DianaHayden.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DianaHayden.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:FerozKhan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FerozKhan.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 05:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rishikapoor aaa.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rishikapoor aaa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck!
Best of luck. Wish you all the best with the surgery and a really speedy recovery! Hope to see you as fast as possible dear! Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aitraaz.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aitraaz.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Amritaarora.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Amritaarora.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NAHID 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Andaaz_movieposter.jpg
I have tagged Image:Andaaz_movieposter.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. Thank you. MER-C 13:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Arbaazmalaika.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Arbaazmalaika.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree
Welcome back dear!

You have full right saying I disagree. Every one has his opinion regarding things like these. But I also have the right to disagree. If it was such an unencyclopedic thing, it would be unnecessary COMPLETELY. See Zinta's talk page, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm offended. Not because of the removal. Because of the drastic edits which came even before saying Hello to me or discussing firstly. All my additions to the controversies section are based on articles from Rediff, Times of India etc, not apunkachoice. Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, there's a reply on Zinta's talk page. Secondly, to prevent an edit war (which definitely would come if we continued like this), there is a need to discuss EVERYTHING. That's all. Have a speedy recovery. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all I'm also busy these days. I have been working very much this month. I have other pages now to follow which are not completed yet. My suggestion to you is to discuss. If you really really think it is unnecessary, you have the talk page for that, I don't own this article. You don't have to concede because of my disapproval. Just wanted to ask you to use always the talk page. I'm doing that with Kareena Kapoor's page, since there's another user who reverts things. Although I respect you a lot, I'm a human being, like you are and everyone has his right to oppose to another one's opinions. You may have that image on me like I'm a kind of Shez_15 for Zinta. I'm sad about this occasion, have a great day. My best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:40, 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  19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

KWK
I liked your new version for the KWK page. But in spite of it, what do you think of having the full list in the end? It just looks unorganized. I don't find a reason to not display that altogether. After all, it's a big trouble to update the page with every new appearance. I have already displayed my suggestion. I know, my suggestions are irksome, but anyway.. Best regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, I noticed the tag and removed the message from your page, cause I thought it's not permitted, and you have already sent your message. -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You've done a great job. Now I'm going to the List of Tamil Films. I want to complete my work on the 2000s page. Regards, -- Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)