User talk:Xcentaur/Archive 3

Not all are images developed from original photographs.
Dear Sir,

The pictures of Ganga Devi,Radha Krishna and Sita Ram are paintings that I have created.I own these Paintings.All others which have been created from original photographs of living people are subject to deletion as according to you.It does not matter to me since i am new to Wikipedia and have not had enough time to go through all the regulations.I do not think i will be able to get any letter of permission from the original photographer or from those who have rights to those photographs .Sorry for the inconvenience.

Regards,

Wizziwiz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizzywiz (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi
User:Shshshsh and User:Shez 15 have already integrated most of the trivia facts into the main article in Preity Zinta`s and Rani Mukherjee`s pages. No need in tags anymore. You may have not seen the trivia but if you look you`ll see that there are only 8 trivia facts in Zinta`s page and 7 in Mukherjee`s, which I`m going to integrate later. So please don`t put it again. Thanks. --Roniron 17:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shshshsh and Shez 15 have removed much of the trivia, and have done a fantastic job.
 * As you pointed out yourself, there are 8 facts in Zinta's page and 7 in Mukherjee's. Since both article still contain trivia sections, they will remain tagged.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but ...
Dear Xcentaur,

That was such a sweet note. I do miss WP in some ways -- it was a great impetus to learning. However, I was losing my temper too much. Dealing with uneducated and cruel POV pushers was taking too much of a toll. You can't have a community if there is no punishment for bad behavior and there are new yahoos jumping into the fray every minute. An argument with a yahoo ONCE is instructive; having the same argument every few days is wearing. It takes months to piss off enough people to rate an arbitration, and then the arbitration itself will take months -- with anyone who ventures to give evidence then becoming a target for venom and possible punishment. What kind of court is it where witnesses become targets?

WP needs better crowd control. Either it reforms, or another site is going to figure out how to do it right and trounce it. Zora 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
Hi!,

Painting all those pictures was a pleasure.I'll be uploading many more other paintings for Wikipedia in future.I'll surely add a tag that i Painted them myself soon. Others need a deletion as you say because i can see that it will not be possible for Wikipedia to continue publishing those images anymore.

Regards, --Wizzywiz 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan
Hello, Xcentaur,

yes, you are absolutely right - the talk page is extremly long. It really whould be archived. I guess we can archive the first thirty topics up to the semi-protection dating February 2007. What do you think?

Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Also, I noted your suggestions for Khan's article - I didn't realize someone groomed it to make Khan look better (see KBC). You're right - we are not Oprah. ;)

Ajith Kumar
Hello, Xcentaur,

if you have time, maybe you could take a look at Ajith Kumar's article. I tried to clean it up several times, but fangush is added time and again. If you'd be willing to help me, maybe we could properly reference it among other things. Because, honestly, it's very tiring to handle the fans over there all alone. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. hey there
Many thanks for your kind comments. I actually do remember running into you on my early days, I actually think your userpage was one of the 1st vandalism reversions that I did! It's unbelievable to think that I came here to create a page on my mates band, and now I'm an administrator! I guess it's just really addictive. I guess the lesson I'd give to anyone starting out on wikipedia would be to treat people how you would wish to be treated yourself, and I hope that people find me friendly on the wiki. On a side note, get some more wikipedia space and wikipedia talk space edits and I'll nom you for adminship if you like?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about number of edits as such, it's more the spread of edits. I don't think anyone would oppose you for number of edits as you have over 3,000 (that's the generally accepted mark), you've also proved to be trusted as you've been here since March 2006 without trouble. As I said, my only concern is your wikipedia space edits, administrators have to deal with wikipedia issues all the time, much of it is what adminship is about. If I was you, I'd try to hammer out the AfD's for a month (by that I mean commenting on them not nominating a load of random articles!), along with getting involved in some policy related debates on wikipedia talk pages (such as WP:U or WP:USER or WP:N), WP:AN/I and WP:AN are also good places to take a look at and comment at as it gives you a feel of what it's like to be an administrator.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sc4900
Could I suggest you post this to ANI instead of AIV? It seems a bit beyond "simple vandalism", especially when dealing with not-so-blatant hoaxes. Nice userpage, by the way :) Cheers,  Daniel Bryant  08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan
Thanks for your help XC, I have re inputted the information with the references of his family backgrounds, but in a way so that it is formatted in the right tone of the article. Could you take a look and let me know if this is cool with you? Many thanks again.--Raja 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything that helps the article is cool with me :)
 * Just had a look at the article - you've formatted it very well and the language follows neutral tone. Excellent edits, Raja! Cheers! xC | ☎  12:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji
Why are you after that page when it is highly maintained by many editors? As a sugession, Preity Zinta's page is pretty similar to Rani's. You should edit that too to be fair. - shez_15


 * Laughable. This is Wikipedia, not your personal playground. No-one can tell me what to edit. So I'll edit whichever articles I like, whether you believe thats fair or not.
 * Just so you know, both pages are a mess. Perhaps thats why they appear so similar.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plz stop!
I'll get you the sources of her link-ups with Govinda, Aditya Chopra and Abhishek Bachchan. But that was all gossip, that's why one of the editors took their names out and all the references but if you want I can. But not right now. Better yet, you do it instead of putting citation needed. I changed family background to early life. Happy? And I'll get to the references later. I have to get up early tomorrow and stay hungry for 36 hours. It's for a cause to donate money to African poverished children. I can't right now. Thanks. - shez_15


 * You simply reverted to your self-certified previous version, and haven't actually achieved anything productive with that revert.
 * The gossip can be mentioned with references, if and only if it is notable. Otherwise that line should be removed.
 * You did not change family background to early life, you just reverted.
 * Citations are the onus of the editor trying to put the content in.
 * I wish you best of luck for your efforts, its a noble cause. Best regards, xC | ☎  06:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Michael as 10 11:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for unblocking me early, Michaelas10. Its kind of you. xC | ☎  16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing autoblock

 * I was unblocked, but now I get a message stating my IP is auto-blocked. Please have a look. Thank you xC | ☎  16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, xC,
 * I informated user Michaelas10 about this. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.
 * Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Rani Mukherjee & various
Hello, Xcentaur, that was really a good idea to have the article proteced. I have gone to Shshshsh and proposed a Third Opinion among other things - maybe this will solve things. As for Preity Zinta's article - as trivia isn't acceptable, I think it sould be definetely incoporated into the main body of the article. I also think the award section needs to be cropped down to the important awards - not all of them are notable, are they? And they do look weird, you're absolutely right - maybe somewhere, there is a policy or a WP guidance on how to list awards - I'm sure that can be used there. And all the fangush has to be removed ("very much in love with Ness Wadia", "popularity", etc.). What do you think? I'll go to do my household chores my mom has so graciously bestowed upon me and then, I'll do some cleaning up. ;) Help is much appreciated and thanks for the heads-up. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'd like to say that this was the first time I've ever had to request article protection. Now its left me with a slightly queasy feeling about ever having to do it again...
 * Its been suggested to me to request a Third Opinion on it, or RfC on the article to sort out the issues.
 * I note that inspite of everything that has happened, there isn't a single message on the talk page of Rani Mukherjee suggesting anything to improve the article. Remarkable.
 * As for Preity Zinta-
 * The lead is POV.
 * Career section woefully inadequate.
 * Popularity section would be more appropriate as In the media.
 * Her good friends mentioned in personal life are unneccessary.
 * Controversy section has potential to be a lot more. Her involvement in the Bharat Shah case and subsequent courage to stick by her statement could be done better. The allegations of Krishnamurthy could also be reworked.
 * Awards and Nominations needs a complete re-write. Not everything there is notable, although I doubt we would manage to remove all of it, reverts only take a few seconds, yes?
 * Lastly, I'd also like to point out that the section Television appearances is ridiculous. Stars appear on television all the time. If anything useful could be extracted from transcripts of said interviews and integrated with the content, well and good. If not, they should be kicked out.


 * These are all, of course, only suggestions. If they seem reasonable and can be implemented, thats well and good. Probably, I'm not going to start with these anytime soon. I've got my hands full with Rani Mukherjee, and I intend to turn that into a respectable article as quickly as the POV-brigade allows me to.


 * Your inputs are requested, and thanks for the note,
 * Regards, xC | ☎  17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Xcentaur,

I opened the debate at Preity Zinta's discussion page, in order to prevent an edit war. I suggest we discuss one problem after the next before changing the article itself. If you know any fellow wikipedians who want to participate - the more oppinions, the better.

Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe?
Hi I am not an admin, but I have been following this particular AnI with interest: wp:Ani

I think this guy is doing it as some sort of experiment or bet: to see how far he can go writing unverifyable stuff without hinderance.

This reminds me of a similar incident that happened with Nature magazine a few years back. They had published an article from a researcher who wanted to prove that you just have to write anything that seems scientific, with a lot of jargon for Nature to publish it even if it didn't make sense. He then promptly went to the press having "proved" his theory ; to the great embararrasment of Nature magazine.

I feel this guy is also trying the same. I suggest that he be blocked immediately and the articles deleted. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You might just be right. Initially I assumed good faith, as per WP:AGF. But now it seems its getting out of hand. I'm not an admin either, but I intend to create a ruckus in a while if this character isn't blocked for disruptive editing.
 * If indeed its similar to the Nature magazine incident, then its alarming. Please post this on WP:ANI, and raise concerns with whichever admins you feel could help.
 * I'll do the same. We need to stop the rumours being spread.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  06:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindi spelling
Your edit was wrong, probably because of buggy software on your side. Please see Enabling_complex_text_support_for_Indic_scripts for details. Thanks. BernardM 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * my bad. replied on user talk. xC | ☎  11:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of vandalism at Randomness
When you revert vandalism, please check that the version to which you are reverting is free of vandalism. There were two acts of vandalism at Randomness and you only reverted the second one. Thanks for your efforts. JRSpriggs 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was on RC patrol, reverting roughly 15 counts of vandalism a minute. Perhaps it might more productive to revert it yourself instead of pointing out unintentional errors on the part of well-meaning editors.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Prods & multi-prods
I've replied on my talk page re this -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on user talk xC | ☎  06:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
WOW thanks, but for me it was really strange. Even the strangest things I have heard today. Rani for Dil Se? It`s strange, that`s the first time I`m reading that. How could the so much acclaimed Mani Ratnam to take Rani (who was just a newcomer) for such a strong role. Plus Manisha was the lead lady in his 1995 film Bombay, and she was very much acclaimed for her role. So how can it be possible that Manisha was his 2nd choice after all? Weird. I will search for more references to see if it`s true. I think it`s a wrong information at all. Anyway thanks:-) --Shshshsh 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :) xC | ☎  19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint
It is ironic to accuse me, Vincent Bethell, of vandalising my own entry. It is also very insulting that people seem to think they know me and my life better than I do. I have made a compliant about this and please not the following statement.

"Civilisation is very repressive therefore individuals don't have any real control over their identity. Wikipdeia is very symptomatic of the lack of control individuals have over their identities because I am not allowed to edit my own entry in Wikipedia as I see fit. The protrayal of my identity on Wikipedia is incorrect and I have tried to change it but I have been warned I will be banned from vandalising my own Wikipedia entry. The lack of control I have over my Wikipedia entry is the essence of why I protested naked because within society I am just an impotent number without personality. It does not surprise me that when assert my innate human perssonality via protesting naked I am likely to be arrested, and it does not surprise me that Wikipedians are threatening to ban me from editing my own entry because the expression of my innate personality does not fit with their views of who I am. It is very insulting that Wikipedians think that they know who I am. I am the ultimate authority upon my identity and life, and I refuse to see Wikipedians repress the truth. I am considering the possiblity of protesting against Wikpedia in the future. It is very ironic to be accused of vanalising my own Wikipedia enrty. I Vincent Bethell do not endorse Wikipedia because I deem it to be a repressive organistion."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent bethell (talk • contribs)


 * Is it just me, or is it ironic that someone who does things like this and this is trying to be taken seriously? xC | ☎  12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta
Sorry I put back the popularity section and please don`t revert. we have reduced very much so please look and you`ll see it`s not so bad and unencyclopedic like you say. Thanks, Best Regards. --Shshshsh 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it is. Please discuss this on the article talk page. Thanks xC | ☎  21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you to notice that one more revert from you could block you. We are in violation now. --Shshshsh 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not actually. Shez removed it the first time. You put it back. Then I removed it. You put it back. I removed it again, and requested you to discuss it on the talk page. So both of us have two reverts counting against us. xC | ☎  21:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that you have reverted yet again, you are on your third revert. xC | ☎  21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh god it was so bad demanding to block me. Thank you so much.--Shshshsh 21:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? xC | ☎  21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * xC I`m not talking about Marie Claire. You suggested to put in a new section so it shoul be kapt. Don`t change your suggestions please. I was talking about Kabul. I agree. I thought about that and I agree to remove this fact, although when Plumcouch comes I`d like to discuss it with her too. Box Office India fact about success ratio remains and for this one I won`t give up. I thought it`s better to put it in the polls section of Preity`s new page. Second highest paid remains too, unless some users would like to remove it from all the page. I agree to transfer the Colbert report to your new section like you suggested. Thank you. and I hope we keep a good and healthy editing manner, despite last night`s skirmish. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm free to change my opinion - I'm afraid you have no say in the matter. I will remain WP:CIVIL, and hope you will too. Best regards, xC | ☎  13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this one will remain in the page. WP does not go according to your opinions and your wishes. Please read in Preity`s page talk page. --Shshshsh 13:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironic. You are telling me that WP does not go according to your opinions and your wishes. Fantastic, that is. xC | ☎  13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My intent wasn`t to insult you. The case is that it looked like you have something against Preity. Now please look at Rani`s page and discuss it if you have some opinion on that. I`ve recently posted an important comment. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My friend, Shshshsh, believe me - I have much better things to do in my life than hold grudges against strangers and film-stars I haven't even met. While your concern about her page is admirable, your constant accusations of the whole world being against Zinta are tiring. We are Wikipedia editors, doing our best to improve an article. We have nothing against her. I have nothing against her. Your case is baseless and your paranoia apparent.
 * I have replied on both talk pages, looking forward to your replies to the same.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  15:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I like her. What`s wrong? Is there any problem? She`s a fabulous actress. However, I`m not an obsessive fan. I like other actresses too like Manisha, Karisma, Kajol and of course Rani (If you know them). I have created various pages of films and few other actresses. That`s mentioned for you to know that my edits are not focus on Zinta only. I like editing. My name is Shahid. I`m telling you that because is a little difficult to spell my user name, so feel free to call me Shahid, like Shez and Plumcouch do;-) --Shshshsh 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You claim you are not an obsessive fan, although your edits prove otherwise. Which other actresses you like does not interest me. I am not concerned with what your real name is, your username Shshshsh is fine by me and I will refer to you by that.
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan
Hello, Xcentaur, I replied to your Shahrukh Khan-comment in SRK's discussion page. I really hope some of the other editors respond. Regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 21:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) PS. You live in Europe, right? We seem to have the same time frame. ;)


 * Thanks for the response on SRK's page. We need all the suggestions and ideas we can get.
 * Nope, not Europe. I'm in India actually, Mumbai to be precise. What about you?
 * I have a roughly polyphasic sleep routine, so perhaps thats why our times seem to tally :)
 * Cheers! xC | ☎  05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Posted on Zinta's discussion page. :)


 * Hello, Xcentaur,
 * wow, you live in India? I've seen some news - I heard the traffic went down, due to the Bachchan/Rai wedding. I live in Europe, Germany, to be precise. I assumed Europe because of the time frame, and somewhere on the British Isles because of your good English.
 * Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 17:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're kidding me, Germany? Do you know German? I've wanted to learn the language for ages - hell of a lot better than French - single rule, seventy-five exceptions. Strange, that is...
 * Well the traffic was only affected a little bit, they don't rule Mumbai you know ;)
 * Thanks for the compliment :)
 * Best regards, xC | ☎  17:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry?
I'm not surprised that Shshshsh has raised concerns about this article. What do you mean? You have signed my name but haven`t answered me. What did you mean? won`t you answer me? --Shshshsh 11:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted my reply on Zinta's page. Please do have a look. Best regards, xC | ☎  12:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rani Mukherjee
Hi xC!

I`ve made some changes on Rani`s page. I have also posted a message in her talk page to those who have some opinions. Please have a look on my changes and write there whether you agree with me or not. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. xC | ☎  12:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
for approving my earlier Silverthorne Lumber Co. Supreme court article. I was worried it would never get approved, thank you for your time. I hope future wikipedians may find the article insightful and build upon it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.26.134.34 (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your contribution! Please do consider signing up for an account :) Best regards, xC | ☎  01:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!
Hi, you sent me a message about the following articles: Don - The Chase Begins Again, Rani Mukherjee and Preity Zinta. I will have a look at Don then probably do something about it, personally those screenshots are just annoying me. I think Im gonna have to do the same for Mukherjee's and Zinta's pages. You see, when it comes to these pages I end up offending certain editors. If you have a look at my talk page, you'll see I've got into arguments with one particular editor regarding the two actresses. I'll have a look at the discussion between you and the other editors regarding the page and then I'll contribute. Thanks for the heads up :-) Pa7 17:05, 2 May 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)

What are you doing?
It looked like you have something against Preity. That`s exactly what I said. I didn`t accused you.

As for now, I don't know if I should believe in you at all cause you are very strange There is nothing bad here. I said nothing wrong cause your decisions change everytime. You`re abusing the fact that we have arguments and demanding other users to do something with me. BTW, this user is the same who has blocked you earlier and I understand your intent here. Anyway, If I did something wrong I`m sorry, so forget to put something to me.

As for Shez, everyone, from Zora to Pa_7 to Plumcouch said what I said and by the way that`s not your problem, that`s my with Shez. He called me once "loser", once "ugly" and I did nothing. So please don`t interfere.

And here is what you have told down our history together:


 * I said: "Oh god you`re so confused" - you replied: "coming from you, that is quite entertaining" you answered me as well. That`s a PA.


 * You said: "A lot of your edits have had to be removed because there was no reason to include them in an encyclopedia." - Apart from Preity`s page, which edits are you relying on? This is a personal attack cause I have a lot of edits. You can`t determine such things on me, only from these edits. It`s a personal attack too.


 * You said: "you seem to believe that everyone except you hates Zinta" - you know nothing about me, you can`t say that. You answered me in the same manner. About shez everyone knows that. Take these last Pa_7 writesShez removes and of course Plumcouch

Here is the proof that he hates Preity and here is the proof that this IP belongs to him. That`s why I said what I said. I told you once. I`m going only as per facts.

Now, you have never answered me this question so please answer now cause this one also considered as a PA in disguise:


 * I'm not surprised that Shshshsh has raised concerns about this article. What did you mean by that when you posted it to Rani`s page?

Best Regards. --Shshshsh 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You later apologized to me for accusing me, I can provide diffs for this.
 * No, I did not demand other users do something with you, whatever that means - I requested an administrator for a knowledgeable opinion on a matter which concerned me.
 * What issues you have with Shez does not matter to me. What I find interesting is that you have issues with all editors. Why is that?
 * Someone who has time and again proved to be illogical called me confused, which is why I found it entertaining.
 * Your edit history is there for all to see. Rather than trying to defend it, why don't you focus your energy on trying to improve articles.
 * you know nothing about me - your behaviour and your editing history speaks volumes about how you are as an editor.
 * Shez has a very well documented editing history as well. What point are you trying to make?
 * My statement that I am not surprised you raised concerns, means exactly that - I am not surprised that you raised concerns.
 * Regards, xC | ☎  14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Read please
My statement that I am not surprised you raised concerns, means exactly that - I am not surprised that you raised concerns - Why not?

Now I`ll just tell you that: these statements remain in the page of Preity. You agreed to leave it and now you regret, and that`s your problem. I will fight for it.

I didn`t try to tell you nothing bad on Shez. Just wanted to prove that my claims are always right, and I`m not attacking him, like you think. I just said that he hated Preity. You said that I thought all of the editors hate her. Exept Shez I didn`t tell it to nobody so please don`t invent. When I told YOU what I told you I said "it seemed" and "against". I didn`t tell you "you hate her". That`s why I gave you my proof, to prove that you are wrong in this case and that my statements are correct. In other words, Shez is the only one whom I said that and the references prove that, so now you know that YOUR claim is wrong. So please stop telling all the world "Shshshsh thinks that all of us hate Preity" bcoz it is also considered as a personal attack by me. You don`t know what I think and you can`t prove your claims. One editor is not sufficient.

Now please look Rani`s page. Firstly, I moved the page to Mukerji. Secondly, I`ve removed one sentence which looked POV. Please tell me if you think it should be kept or not.

Now I`m busy on the Bollywood awards. I`m creating new pages of past winners so I may not respond you now very soon. I`m very sad we have an endlessly argument with each other. At the beginning I thought that we would share a great working manner. Anyway. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 15:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: BTW, when Pa_7 told you that there`s one editor who was arguing with her she didn`t mean me. I was always quite good with her, so don`t say editors.


 * First of all, what I mean when I spoke to Pa7 is between me and Pa7. You are remarkably self-centred if you believe that I am referring to you whenever I use the word 'editor(s)'.
 * You agreed to leave it and now you regret, and that`s your problem. I will fight for it. - No, I don't regret anything. I got tired of the discussions going round in circles and your tiresome manner of arguing, which is why I compromised. After looking at several other articles on WP, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to allow you to treat that page like your personal playground.
 * so now you know that YOUR claim is wrong. - You have provided diffs for Shez. I can provide diffs which prove that you have harassed editors in the past, made unfair allegations and continously accused well-meaning editors of hating said actress. In this matter, I'm afraid it is you who is wrong.
 * Lastly,You don`t know what I think and you can`t prove your claims. One editor is not sufficient. - The thing is, its not just one editor, and I can prove my claims.
 * Your past conduct is very well documented on the article talk pages and your user talk. These self-righteous claims you are making here are laughable, to say the least. You would be better off starting your own fansite for Zinta, so that you can put whatever you like there. xC | ☎  05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)