Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 3

message: :::The previous version is a little bit tasteless. I don't really understand why the "2005-present" has been separated from the whole Success section. 
:::My suggestion is like this:
:::* Since Zinta's career has been running very fast in the last 9 years, her Early Career would be 1998-1999. We can expand it a little, by adding some information about the beginning of her work.
:::* Kya Kehna was the Breakthrough of her career in the full sense of the word. She received her first nomination for Best Actress and it was her first hit which is also her solo release.
:::* Undoubtly, in 2003, came the success. She was the most successful actress of the year, winning awards and acting in the biggest films of the year.
:::So, that's the reason I'm doing that. If we use, 2005-Present in a separate section it sounds like all the success has gone since then till date. But the truth is that the actress had hits - every year, nominations - every year.
:::I waited for Pa_7 to hear her opinion, that's why I didn't put into action my edit intents yesterday. Please Pa_7 discuss here your thoughts. Best Regards --Shshshsh 13:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My suggestion for a new career sections 

message: "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.[72] She is also famous in Netherlands[73]"
:This fact was there for a long time, but user xC objects to have it here. However, he/she didn't remove it from the page of Madhuri Dixit. I think Dixit deserves to have it. She is really popular and has a big and well honoured career. I know Zinta hasn't beaten Dixit's records, but if she also appears in the reference which describes the fact, why not mentioning it in her page too? I don't know why, but xC didn't have a look on Dixit's page and didn't remove it from her page like he did with Zinta. I see this fact remained on Dixit's page, so it remains here too. I like Dixit a lot, but I think it would be unfair to remove something from Zinta's page, while ignoring the existance of the same fact in Dixit's page. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 10:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International fame 

message: The 3O request for this article is very vague: what is the "certain content" under dispute? It looks like the main dispute is being resolved amicably. I'll affirm in general that many Bollywood articles need to be edited to remove non-neutral statements made by fans. Let me know if you want a third opinion on anything more specific. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  03:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll drop a request if we need any 3O's in future. All editors on this page resolved the dispute between ourselves, and the issue about the content has been cleared out, so I don't think we'll be needing any third-party intervention for this. Still, thanks for your time and caring enough to drop by. Regards, xC | ☎  03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion request is vague 

message: If we're talking about Media, so we can live there tv appearances, polls (media lists), success, trademark. Half of the page here could be regarded as Media. So what? We have to match everything to its most notable belonging. 
*Cannes it is not media - Commitment
*Filmfare is, but it's more representation rather than media.
*Art gallery - she was the guest honour - it is not media at all.
*GoAir - Media? No no Not at all - commitment.
If the insistence to put it all in the same section remains, so please let's rename the In The Media section again as Popularity. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.
The site has a malfunction. It doesn’t include Veer-Zaara in Rani’s filmography. Thus, the above statement cannot be used as both actresses have 7 hits.  Veer-Zaara includes Amitabh and Hema in it who have ten minute roles but not Rani. An error. 
- shez_15
:Kudos to Shez 15 for pointing out a glaring error in the article. In fact, Shez had pointed this out long back on one of the user talk pages as well, except that was ignored by that editor. Excellent work, Shez, we need more watchful editors like you. xC | ☎  12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK he is really wonderful, but it's important to note that here the site mentions also Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, where she had just a cameo of ten minutes. So they forgot Veer-Zaara, but they put K3G so that's ok and the fact is still the same. You could never consider K3G as a film of her. Cameo is cameo, so they were wrong putting it in her filmography too. BTW, our reference in Preity's intro is about this generation of actors, while grossing film is considered here as a film that does more than 25RS crores from this generation. In fact, Preity has 8 major grossers in her career, while Rani has 6 (as per the site) if you look the adjusted version. Rani is just listed b4 because of TRRP gross, cause there they are going according to total gross and not number of major grossers. but it still marks that Preity has 8 and Rani 6, cause TRRP was just an average performer at the BO and wasn't a big grosser. Sorry guys, Best Regards, --Shshshsh 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, xC, please be direct and if you mean that I was the one who ignored this fact from Shez, say that. And he has never said that. If he had known that before, he would have removed that way before. And if you mean the recent message of yesterday, I had posted my message to him before you did it here. --Shshshsh 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are terribly self-obsessed if you believe that every time I say 'certain editor' it refers to you. I genuinely do not remember whose talk page Shez 15 brought this issue up, but I am certain that Shez 15 has mentioned this point before. In fact, now that you've reacted this venomously for no apparent reason, I'm fairly certain it was on your talk page. I'm on RC patrol right now, I'll look up a diff and post it here. Regards,xC | ☎  17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing statements which could be misconstrued as a personal attack. I do not wish to have anything more to do with this page at this time. Shshshsh, you have got your wish, please carry on as you like -  I won't try to cleanup this page anytime soon. My best regards,xC | ☎  18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Fact