Talk:Dia Mirza/Archive 1

message: Someone please change the name of this page from 'Diya Mirza' to 'Dia Mirza'.
'Diya' was her former name, she changed it (officially), to Dia Mirza in 2003.
Please change the spelling.
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.149.149 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Any reliable information including info on 'product endorsements' was being continously d by other editors. Please reinsert the information. or is there a need to enter the same information every few hours? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.184.11 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product endorsements 

message: As for table, see Zora's comment:
: Anon, tables are NOT discouraged. I see them in many articles. Can you cite any official policy against tables? Zora 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC
As for product endorsements: while Mirza is brand ambassador for various products, it's enough to just mention the fact. See pages of other actors for that, like Shahrukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan or Rani Mukerji: they are all over TV for various products, but that doesn't mean the ad gets featured on their page. Mirza endorses brands, WP don't. --Plumcouch 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables & Product Endorsement 

message: I removed IMDb from 'External link ' because it is highly unreliable database when it comes to 'Indian Cinema' eventhough it has good record of English Movies. There are number of instances when IMDb either misquoted one movie for another or one cast member for another when you search for filmography of Indian actresses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.184.21 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMBD 

message: Hello, anon.
* I (personally) believe that tables make an article more organized. There are editors who don't accept listings of movies or cast members, unless there are presented within a table. For an example, you can look at the history of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge. It provides a better overview and is not *disencouraged*. If you think that tables are annoying, put up a discussion and talk about with the other editors. However if the majority is all for tables and only a few are not, we try to be democratic and go with the majority, since there are certain standards people agree on.
* Most actress/actor articles look the same: we try to standardize them - it's easier to write an article according to guidelines; otherwise everyone would just do what they want. Some guidelines, you can find on the Indian Cinema Project page.
* Endorsements: Why don't you just mention that she *does* endorse stuff, not what, which commercial and for what company? If we keep lists what actor has endorsed what we have to make new pages just for the products -- Shahrukh Khan is brand ambassador for many different lables. Also, WP does not endorse. If you want to put up that kind of information, wh don't you create a web page for Dia and write it there?
* IMDb: no matter how unreliable, it's standard and people have agreed upon the fact that it's standard. You'll find the IMDb page on most actor/actress pages - and IMBd itself is improving; slowly, but it is. You can subit information to IMBd - why don't you go there and repair Dia's movie list if you are not happpy with it.
Best regards,
--Plumcouch 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables, Endorsements & IMBd 

message: Now that the article has been unlocked, i presume there is no more any dispute here...Anon Alleged Vandal of diamirza article.
:I'm not 100% sure about that. I just thought that, now all of the parties were talking, the article should be unprotected. If you make an edit and somebody reverts it, please discuss it on this page instead of just making the change again. I will keep an eye on things for the next few days, but it looks like everybody involved is now being reasonable and I hope to avoid protecting the article again. --GraemeL (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do understand that. I should also point out that I no longer consider you a vandal. You were just not familiar with the way things work on Wikipedia. Now you are using the talk pages, you shouldn't have too many problems. --GraemeL (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Here was I thinking that you were going to be reasonable. If you start an edit war again and refuse to discuss changes, then the article will be protected for as long as necessary for you talk to the other editors and build a consensus as to the content of the article. If you want to follow the way things work on Wikipedia, everything will be much easier. If you want to ignore the way the community works, the article will be protected. --GraemeL (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Ends Here

message: Since you guys show so much favoritism towards IMDB, I was wondering whether WP is funded/controlled by them?
IMDB pages contain lot of ads and whenever someone is referred from WP, I can assume atleast some of them will click those ads!
Do you guys get paid for that?
Because I am not happy with you applying your so-called rules to some sites and not to others.
Just because a site is owned by "professionals", or it has been around for long doesn't necessarily means its content is excellent as well.
When Open Directory (DMOZ) can link to a page, then why can't WP do the same?
DMOZ is also human-edited and I am sure they know as much as you do!
Why act as dictators? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unmoderated/open?
At the moment it seems you guys want to put up whatever you like!
:: Hello, anon,
:: there are some rules that have been agreed upon by editors who work on the Indian Cinema articles. And there are even more rules given to each editor by Wikipedia and it's community. I myself am not happy with each and every resolution we have here, but, out of respect for the other editors and the fact that the majority decides things via democracy, I accept them. I put a question about fansites on the Discussion board (here ) and so far, it has not been roundly rejected so maybe there is hope. If you favour the DMOZ, don't like the way things are done here or simply do not what to participate in the discussion about fansites over at the project page, I suggest you leave. If you can convince more editors to accept endorsemnts on actor/actresses pages, fansites or other links, and gain a majority, the policy will be changed and these things can be added. Since a majority for your suggestion isn't reached, you either try to get one or accept the current policy designed by an earlier majority - we strongly advocate democracy here and ask every editor to follow it. No one here works for IMDb (I most certainly don't), but it's the standard decided by a majority. Put up another debate and maybe you can change the standard. Best regards, --Plumcouch 15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's a transparent system of voting. One asks a question like "Are cows green?" and you have three lists: Support, Reject and Neutral. Everyone who says "Yes, cows are green" places her/his name under "Support", everyone who says "No, they are not" places his name under "Reject" and the neutral ones ... well, you know how it goes. You can check via the history page if someone's manipulating a vote and socket puppets can be unveiled by the admins and mere IPs are not allowed - since if people have a Dial-Up connection, IPs get changed and next vote, the same user could be using another IP or the other way round. What is not fair or not transparent about that system? --Plumcouch 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did! Currently, on the Indian Cinema Project Page, I put up a question what people think about the fansite issue. You're most welcome to adopt a user name (otherwise you can't vote for resons just one response above this) and put up your own vote. No problem. But as long as this has not happened, we stick to the old rules as long as someone comes a along and makes people change them. (If you want to make a vote to find out what everything thiking, try with those, for example: Let's include commercials as an attempt to list each and every information about an actor/actress, instead of just mentioning the fact that someone is a brand ambassador for something. Or: Let's cut tables - they eat up Wikipeadia resources. Or: Let's accept fansites! Or: Let's kick IMDb since it isn't a comprehensive database anyway - especially for Indian Movies -- and commercial, too!) :) Happy voting. :) --Plumcouch 14:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  There ware no higher ranking persons here. Everyone's an equal. Admins are only users with more abilities. *I* don't want to change anything about the policies - I'm happy with them. If one of you guys wants to change them, make the proposal over at the project. --Plumcouch 17:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do! I accepted the fact that you are not happy with the current state of the page. I told you how you can change established policies and set up a vote. I didn't revert it back. But I also accept the democracy which has established the fact that we are *against* endorsements. Yet, I didn't revert it back so you guys have a opportunity to talk to other editors about what concerns you. Still, by not setting up a vote over at the project page and by just putting everything back how you like it to be, you don't even try to be democratic. Ask other people how they think about it. Give others a chance to voice their ideas or concerns. --Plumcouch 18:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB funds WP? 

message: The article is a bad read in its current form. The biography section is highly disjointed, doesn't talk abt when she started modeling (that's important, not what products she endorsed), when she entered acting etc. Also, all of the trivia in its present form can be integrated with the biography. Having tables helps in ease of organising and editing, apart from being pleasant on the eye for a reader. Imdb.com is a repository of information about movies and movie personnel. I can always report a discrepancy if I find one. I'm not sure that fansites are objective and hence I don't see a need to list them - Also, WP is not a link farm. More importantly, we frown on fair use for the simple reason that the content here is licensed out on GFDL, which means that fair use puts a restriction on the content itself. More info can be obtained by reading the article on GFDL. One may like it or not, but WP works on consensus building, subject to notability and verifiability. --Gurubrahma 04:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2 cents!! 

message: Why are the self-declared protectors and editors of the article are not acting anymore?
Since you got what you want you no longer have any interest in the article? What happened to all the 'WP' users who build 'democractic,consensus based' articles which are agreeable to the users of the WP( which may not be necessarily be true and authentic)? 
...Anon..alleged vandal of diamirza article.
: I have a life, believe it or not. I finished proofreading two manuscripts this morning, then spent some time with my daughter before she returned to the Bay Area for summer school. Taking a class in data structures! My little geekette! Zora 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a kind remark. Zora 20:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Semi-protection so you can keep you control? Maintain absolute power? Dictate?" You really caught me there. ;) And I'm not scared of naming you, but so far, you don't have a name on Wiki - and I'm sure you caught the literary reference of "you-know-who".  --Plumcouch 16:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost Interest?

message: i accept my defeat in the 'revert edit war' and promise not to edit anymore the 'diamirza' article. You can safely unprotect it from now(if the apparent reason is me). Since i realised i cannot post anything here without the information being removed by Zora or Plumcouch(for time being)..they being on better side as registered users and since i don't want to register. I would not supply any information and it is upto the likes Zora, Plumcouch to find and post what they think is 'consensus' 'WP accepted' information.
However i appoint myself the unregistered Watch Dog' who'll watch every change made to the article and recommend(bark)on this Talk page(atleast this page is not vandalised so often.
..Anon..the alleged Vandal of Diamirza article:)
:: Okay. See you then. --Plumcouch 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watch Dog

message: What happened?..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.179.33 (talk • contribs) .
:Sorry, I don't understand your question. Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to ask someone to protect or semi-protect a page, go  here: . --Plumcouch 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go and talk to Tom on his Userpage. --Plumcouch 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Harrison

message: The article needs Update?Looks like none of the 13000 volunteers are interested in adding anything to the article except remove or manipulate information supplied by others and add tables to it?
I suggest you people can do some Google search and add information to the article. 
..Anon alleged vandal of DiaMirza Article
---
Seems like they only know how to talk without action!
Good there is some update there..
-----Thanks there for saying something.
It Would be nice if the user whoever updated the father 'Ahmed Mirza' information cite articles or any other video or audio source.
SURNAME: She has been using the name Diya Mirza even at the time of Miss Asia Pacific Days. So how can the update claim She changed her surname after the step father's death?
PRATEEKSA: The production of Prateeksa has been finished long back and the film has been released on Sahara one as part of Sahara one series of films releasing on Tv. However it never released in theatres..for many reasons. 
May be you can find some help here..
http://www.sahara-one.com/fpc/30-11-05.htm
More information on the production stage can be found by searching articles on this unique sahara one initiative new to Indian Hindi Cinema.
IMDB: The Imdb Filmography is not uptodate and omitted information on Diya Mirza filmography (has not even made changes to her name)See here http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1069850/
And it is the professional WP recommended standard site for all cinema.
...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article
:: Added refs, changed Prateeksa, and as for IMDb: yes, it still is. ;) --Plumcouch 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Update