Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 1

message: A very enthusiastic anon rewrote the article in Indian English. Rather than just revert, I rewrote again. Anon, I don't know how to disapprove without sounding like a scolding English teacher ... Indian English is an estimable, lively dialect but it is not encyclopedic. I looked at the article before you rewrote it; it was a bit disorganized, but the English was at least correct. The anon took standard English and turned it into phrases that were just every so slightly wrong and strange from the viewpoint of standard British or American English. I don't suppose that matters too much if you're writing a completely NEW article -- if you supply good material, someone else can do the copyediting. But it seems like a waste of everyone's time to turn standard English into Hinglish, which then has to be corrected. 
While I was rewriting that, I reorganized the article, which had gotten rather disjointed as movies and awards were added one by one. Zora 07:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete revision 

message: Would somebody research just how many (and which) films India has had nominated for 'Best Foreign Film' at the Hollywood Oscars? I can't quite believe that Rani has been in four out of seven nominations! Autumnleaf 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone say that she had been in four out of seven nominations? I don't find that in the article. Praps it has been removed already. I have been googling assiduously to find a list of India's submissions to the Oscars and I can't find one. We need one! As to Calcutta society in the 1960s -- I never moved in such exalted social circles! <g> Zora 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oscar nominated foreign films? 

message: We should really include Mangal Pandey - The Rising as one of her recent movies. (My account is Shell but I have still not recieed my password even after asking to recover it)
: It was there, but under The Rising. They changed the English name of the film several times I think. It was the Rising, Mangal Pandey: The Rising, Mangal Pandey, and Ballad of Mangal Pandey. Confusing. Zora 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mangal pandey?? 

message: Anon, PLEASE don't change the opening para to read that Rani believes that the name change has been lucky for her, based on numerology. That is muddled thinking. She changed it in the first place because she believed in numerology. She thinks that it has been lucky for her because her life has improved, not because of numerology. Those are TWO separate concepts. Please don't revert my edits. You are trying to puff up Rani and I am trying to keep the article cool and encyclopedic. Zora 00:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That Rani1 image is a copyright violation soon to be deleted. Zora 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Shez 15, this is not a fan website. It is simply not appropriate to fill the article with gushing adoration of Rani. We have to write the sort of article that will still be good twenty years from now, when Rani is playing mother roles or gone from Bollywood, and younger hotter actresses have seized the limelight. Rani's page should be just as objective as the pages for Nargis or Madhubala. Also, please stop linking to the copyvio santabanta picture. Zora 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shez 15, the Hum Tum picture is gone because it's a copyvio. I didn't do that, someone else did. I moved the other picture into its place. Please stop reverting to your fan edits. Zora 23:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a fan site, this is an encyclopedia 

message: The picture that's up now is really really bad. Someone mucked with the aspect ratio and she looks skewed. We need a good public domain picture. Magazine covers seem to be OK -- can someone scan a recent movie mag cover and put it up? Zora 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This is, as mentioned above, *not* a fansite and three pictures, two of them with copyvios and the other with lots of text won't do. One picture were you see how she looks like is completely enough. --Plumcouch 17:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again pictures 

message: Rani has lately changed her surname from Mukherjee to Mukerji. She believes in numerology ... Is it a joke ? I think " Mukherjee " is a latin translation for the original name " रानी मुखर्जी " which is written in devanagari characters. Can someone tell me more ? (Waaz, french Wikipédia).
: It's actually no joke, as many names and titles are changed because according to numerology, their owners believe another combination of letters will provide better luck. For most recent examples of people changing names and titles according to numerology, see actor Vivek Oberoi who changed his name to Viveik Annand Oberoi because of numerology and director Rakesh Roshan, who changed his movie title Krish to Krrrish, because a popular numerologist told him to do so. It's actually quite common in India. --Plumcouch 17:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, they only change the way their names are transliterated in the Roman alphabet. It works because of the high level of ambiguity inherent in the Roman alphabet. deeptrivia (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerology ? 

message: I just checked the list. Rani was positioned at number 50, not in the top ten. So i have changed that statement 
Pa7 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  statement concerning poll results 

message: The screenshot was not tagged correctly. Furthermore, it was manipulated with dual colour, resulting in the yellowish look. And the Dabboo Ratnani calender shot is clearly Photoshop manipulated (look at her eyes). I fell that pictures of a person should illustrate what the person looks like. I'm not sure of photoshop-ed images are useful when it comes to that. --Plumcouch 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the KGKG screenshot and the calender shot 

message: You say that the the Dabboo Ratnani calender shot is clearly Photoshop manipulated (look at her eyes). You should watch some of Rani's movies before commenting. Her eyes are probably a world phenomenon. They are really beautiful and out of this universe. This picture is real and not photoshopped. You should see other pictures from the calendar and they are also real.
:Be that as it may, the calender shot wasn't tagged correctly. Some of Dabboo Ratnami's calender shots are displayed on IndiaFM.com and it says "All rights reserved". As for the KKKG still: it's photo-manipulated with dual-colour (as is the Dabboo-Ratnami shot, but what the hey). --Plumcouch 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Plumcouch|Plumcouch]] 

message: I have semi protected the page so that he can't log and edit in as an anon. I have also posted a message on his and the corresponding IP's talk pages to try and bring him to this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: Hi, i thought everyone was happy with the article. What i mean to say is what happened?? I thought only admins were allowed to add the protection template? Also User:Shez 15 has joined Wikipedia Indian Cinema Project, and from the edit history he is not happy with the article. Basically we have to discuss this because it looks like there is gonna be a edit war between users. Personally i prefer Zora's version just for the fact it is neutral. Anyone else please give their opinion??? We need to sort this out. Pa7 14:06, 06 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected again 

message: Gosh, she is so beautiful! --Aminz 04:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't she? Weird thing to say, but, I think that on the whole, Indian actresses are prettier than American actresses. Zora 05:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So beautiful 

message: Shez keeps breaking the career section into two chunks. He thinks it makes the article look more elaborate. That is not a good reason for a break. The point he chooses to break seems perfectly arbitrary to me.
Shez also added another one of his "scoring" observations, which I removed.
Finally, Shez keeps restoring HIS version of "Two films in which Rani appeared ..." Shez, your version is not only ungrammatical, it's misleading. Rani did not have a large role in Hey Ram. It's misleading to hint that she was essential to the movie, so that two of "her" films have gone to the Oscars. Zora 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the career section in two 

message: I've removed two facts regarding Mukerji's awards. The Black awards comment was removed because her awards are already listed and people can see that she has won a majority of awards for Black. Also I removed the Filmfare comment because people can go on the actual page to see who won what awards for what year and who won the awards consecutively. The fact that she won the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress is significant because she is the first actress to have done it. Pa7 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards facts 

message: Shez is back at it, all films and adulatory talk is back on site. Other actors have limited mention of films in the article itself, for Rani despite a very small body of work all the films are being mentioned. Not only are they mentioned, misinformation like X being a hit is also mentioned.Haphar 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to Fanpage

message: That Tsunami thing is not notable, since everyone donated and created Foundations to help people:
Vivek Oberoi adopted a village , and helped with his Yasodhara Foundation .
Subhash Ghai, Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai donated too  - sadly to say and to play the Advocatus Diaboli: Like in the New Orleans catastrophy, lots of people take to opportunity to create publicity by donating. --Plumcouch 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsunami Donation 

message: I have removed the following things from the page: 
* Black was selected as the world’s 5th best movie of 2005 by Time Magazine
* Her two movies have been India's entry to the Academy Awards. Paheli was the official entry for the 2006 Oscars. Hey Ram (2000) was an earlier entry. (See India's official entry).	
 
* Black, Paheli, and Veer-Zaara were all part of the final process of nomination selection for the 63rd Annual Golden Globe Awards amongst 60 foreign films in 2006	
 
This sort of material belongs in the movie pages NOT in this article. Its as if this is implying that all the movies are great because they all had Rani Mukerji in them. Many other articles on Bollywood actors have limited mention of the success or failure of movies in their articles. It should not be in this article. There is lots more fangush in the article, but I have a feeling that User:Shez15 will not be happy. Also the article is long enough for two images, so I have deleated the image that I uploaded of Mukerji. Thank you. -- Pa7 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fangush 

message: I again toned down Shez's worshipful version of the article, removing all the dang polls (ephemera) and the bit re Preity Zinta. It's fairly clear to me that the rivalry between Preity and Rani is all in Shez's head. Spats, squabbles, rivalries, who's dating who -- stuff of film columns, but not an encyclopedia. Someone added the bit re Rani's admiration of Adolf Hitler, but phrased it as if only Jews could possibly be offended by her choice. Anyone European or American would be ASTOUNDED by such a statement. You don't have to be Jewish to think that admiring Hitler (a genoicidal mass murderer) is bizarre. Zora 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, the Hitler comment. It's still listed in some of Mukerji's interviews and to say, that I was astounded when I read that is an understatement. If an actress in Germany would issue such a comment, there would be an international outcry, several religious minority would make statements, as well as the neighbourhood countries. Hitler and everything surrounding him is still a very, very big thing here and everyone seems to tiptoe around the topic as not to affront anyone. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 11:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guys, don't be so over-whelmed. It was only a joke. Don't you get it? Anyway, I've put new stuff on the page. Rather than deleting it, understand it and replace if need not be on the page. Thanks. shez_15
With all due respect, but I believe you shouldn't joke about a man who is responsible for killing over fifty million people. And personally, I'm not sure if it *was* joke. There are no references for that. Did she say she was joking? Talking about bad sense of humour there. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 00:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP not a film magazine 

message: I know more about her than you. Maybe ten times more. I don't think you shud reverts someone's work when you haven't even read it or understood it. I've put references for everys sentence almost. The fact about her rivalry with Zinta is relevant. It's always in the news. Though, I don't think they fight or anything but it's noticed and you can see how someone treats the other. They're only polite to each other because you have to be politically correct in front of the media. I think you should know this common sense fact. Anyway, it's not created in my head. I've provided references. You shud read each one b4 you have a right to revert. You shud take keen interest on Rani if you want to improve her page and if you are a respected editor. I've never said Oh she's the best in the business even though I think she is and every magazine thinks so too. In any case, I've only been subtle. I said she is one of the most bankable stars, didn't say she is the most. I hope you know what i mean. I think you are doing all this bcoz of personal differences. Look, I'm sorry when i said you were having heavy periods. I've apologized. Now plz work professionally. You can teach me how to write or you cud put it in your words. Instead, you opt to just revert eveything without reading it. I even told you to discuss with me. But guess what, it only took you five minutes to revert. Look, there is a problem here. We should solve it rather than taking short-cuts. I'm tired of explaining it to you. You just think you know everything. Well guess what. You know nata. I've been watching bollywood movies, actor's interviews ever since i was a child. I know the trivia of everything if you ask me. I don't think you are a desi, you don't watch indian television. you don't have dish. you know nothing. so if you wanna know, read those references. Again, on the internet, it doesn't have everything. It's more generalized. In any case, you can't describe an actor by two paragraphs. You need more details than that. I've provided those and you won't read them. Unless you do, you won't get it. I've put everything there. Help me rather than fighting this. If you don't have the energy to help and you're lazy then just leave this page. Do Aishwarya Rai. In the coming days, she will have the most news. Do other actors. Don't waste time here unless you have something to give. Now, I've repeated this again and again but it doesn't get to your head. Does it? Even gamesmaster9 will back me on the preity-rani rivalry. You don't know. When you're in show-biz and when you're in India, there is lots happening. You are an outsider. You don't know these things. We've grown up watching interviews and movies. We know the in and out. Even if you research, say for the next ten years, you still won't know as much as I or any other Indian movie fan. Plz do something creative. Or are you saying you know better? LOL. PLz. Now talk to me b4 reverting.
--- shez15 09:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PLz stop your reverts when you don't know anything about Rani

message: Can we make Rani Mukerji's page somewhat like Diane Keaton's one. It's a beautiful article. That's why I keep adding facts and stuff to Rani's article to make it more like other ones. We need to think outside the box. If only someone can put those facts in real nice words and make the sentences interesting. But you guys keep reverting the work, making an excuse for fangush. If it's fangush, then why don't you take the facts from fangush and make a better sentence which is more subtle and appropriate. I don't think it's fangush. But everything on the page is true, so just take the references and use them to write better and long. References don't lie, that's why I've put reputed source. I already cut down on the Filmfare No.1 fact but even on Diane, Eva Longoria, JLO's page, there is a mention of rankings. And so many other articles. There's nothing wrong with it. You don't need to rank everyone. Just the top three or just the no.1 It's a great accomplishment. It's not just one source, you know. Every magazine puts her as No.1 for box-office power. I don't think that's fangush. If it were only one magazine, maybe favoritsm but when every top magazine of India, states the same, there is no fangush there. Anyway, do whatever. I just don't want Rani's page to be boring and brief like other Bollywood-related articles. If we start from here, maybe later on, the format can be used and other Bollywood articles can do the same and become more interesting. People don't even look at an article if it's short. There is no info. People tend to search somewhere else on google. Then what's the point of this article? Why not just delete it? Well, I can only do so much as to add info, you guys are editors who can write good and organize thoughts and convey subtle information. Perhaps, maybe even influence people. The old days are gone. Just because Madhuri's article is brief, doesn't mean Aishwarya's or Sushmita's need to be less than that length. People search the latest stuff. We need to improve our current actors and actresses pages. Then, we can move on to legends. Think about it. We can do such a good job. Only if you cooperate and we must not revert one other's work before discussing the problem. I already put so many references. I think it's fine for now. But we can do 50 by the end of 2007. Just think it through. You just need to read all those articles and put it all together in one article. Just go through the references. Thanks for reading this! -- shez 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Wanted! 

message: Hello, guys,
I just added the poster for Baabul and noticed that on that poster her name is written Mukherjee. Any indications that she messed around with the spelling again? --Plumcouch Talk2Me 11:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely someone in the poster department messed up, and is having his/her head handed to him/her on a platter right now. Zora 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rani on Baabul poster 

message: Shez, lists and polls are trivial. They will be completely forgotten in a month. They don't rate mention here! Please don't keep putting in that business about how she wanted to be a housewife. I looked at the interview that you used as a reference and she doesn't say that anywhere in the interview. She just says that she had a traditional home life growing up.
Please don't keep adding "notable roles." That's personal opinion -- it simply means, "films of hers that I like." Suppose I like different movies? How would we adjudicate which films are notable and which aren't? Cite critics or box office results -- in body of article, not in infobox.
Incident re lathi charge was covered in too much detail. It will also be forgotten in a month. Zora 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because she has won awards for those roles, we could say they are notable roles? Ekantik 00:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable roles, wanted to be a housewife, etc. 

message: I have removed her link-ups because gossips about living persons cannot be mentioned when they have denied it. It would amount to personal attack. Her being the highest paid is disputed so put "one of the highest paid". Info on film performance primarly belongs in the film page so shortened sentence to "done very well at the box office". Also there is no need for all the polls so I kept just the one. I was going to delete media appearances but I know some users may be angry with this. Any opinions on this section is please comment. -- Pa7 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think media appearances is necessary. This is a section that could grow endlessly, but it doesn't seem to me to be useful info. I have a feeling that Shez wants it there only so that he has a pigeonhole for every factoid about Rani that he can winkle from the net, and as a form of concealed boasting about famous people she's met and charities she supports. On the other hand -- I'm not sure that I have the stomach for yet one more fight with Shez. Zora 17:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really hate that section because like you said the list would be endless. Bollywood and Hollywood stars make endless appearances and we can't really cover all of them. Also that info is journo material and belongs in a magazine not an encyclopedia. I will talk to Shez and get him to state his opinions. The primary reason I didn't remove that section was because of him and I had a feeling he would be upset by it. Nevertheless I will try and get more opinions on this section and the article as a whole. -- Pa7 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for deleting media appearances; there are so many of them, really, and most of them are for promotion anyway. However, if there'd be a "No-War"-strike concerning the Irak war and Mukerji would be walking in the first row or something, I think that be mentionable (because generally, Bollywood stars don't do stuff that could intentionally harm their reputation, like that dam-protest-issue Aamir Khan did). Opinions? --Plumcouch Talk2Me 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Don't you have other articles to guard? It's always about why is she getting this section whereas other actors don't have this section. And then later on, you put the same sections on other actors. To cite a few examples, like the filmography chart, notable roles, television appearances, polls... If you like my ideas, why don't you just say that can I put this on Zinta's page too? Or if you like any other actor? Anyway, I don't think we should delete the media appearances section because it depicts on what important charities have she done and what the president has said about her. It also ties knot to Pakistan and India's relationship. Again, we won't be adding and adding stuff to it. If that's the case, we will shorten sentences, but I don't think we'll add more. Coz she has met Will Smith, Prince Charles among many others. It's futile to list personalities rather a good cause like the recent one with the Duke who's investing in Indian films and Rani was a part of it which is nice to read. And plz if you don't like a section, say it then, rather when I've worked on it for a month and then you come up with an idea to end it. It's not fun for me. I would've had 50 references by now but you've kept deleting them. So stop talking about deleting stuff rather improve the page by adding more info. Again, the trivia is a different section and accomplishments is different. Whatever we've put in trivia is more like career-related stuff which we don't put in the career section because it would destroy its continuity and be more like bragging, that's why accomplishments, just like on JLo's page. Trivia, as I've observed is more like trivial things, not polls or highest-paid, it's more to do with she has not done this. She has this eye color. She is known for this. Her favorite thing is this. That's trivia. It's more like for fans who want to know more about her personal preferences. Again, we could delete the trivia section but it wud be unfair, since every actor has it on wikipedia. Trivia is something which goes on and on but we'll put quality trivia and reduce garbage. I've started with something so you can discuss on it as well. Lastly, you can't say that by charging 4 crore rupees, she has now become one of the highest paid as she was already one of the highest paid even with 2.5 crore. I've put the highest paid only because I heard it on the news channel HEADLINE NEWS. They mentionned it. That's why I looked on the net but I only found it on imdb. I'm sure as time moves on, we will find a better reference since Indian magazines anually list highest paid people. Hrithik Roshan has become the highest paid recently. Unless you can prove his figures worth nothing compared to another actor, you can say he's not the highest paid. So unless. If you can prove that Ash is charging 5 crore per movie, then you can say that she is the highest paid, until then Rani is. Come on. How can Ash charge 5 more than Rani. Her last hit was in 2002. DEVDAS. She has had only four big hits with a career-span of 40 films. This was a top discussion on Headline News where they stated that Ash is India's most over-rated actress. You could look that up on youtube.com. She was there too in the interview and she admits, she's only surviving because of her fans. I'll link the interview after this. Watch it! For now, bye. -- User:shez_15 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you got the idea that everybody is jealous of Rani Mukerji. I mean please, we do have lives. Also if you bothered to look above then I started the discussion about the media appearances section and even sent messages for opinions. So to say that if you don't like a section, say it then, rather when I've worked on it for a month and then you come up with an idea to end it is totally irrelavant. We have not removed that section out of respect for you. So please, in the future do read the talk page rather then assuming. -- Pa7 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are you guys jealous of Mukerji? 

message: Any references that do not comply with WP:RS or are otherwise unreliable will be removed. This includes references from Apunkachoice.com and Tripod sites. Ekantik 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References will be removed

message: I had a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and I feel it highlights some points that go with this debated section. I feel that the media appearances section should be deleted because magazines and newspapers cover these appearances. I don't think they should be in an encyclopedia. I don't see how the relationship with Pakistan and India has anything to do with Rani. All she did was attend a dinner. Also a new anon is following suit and adding this section in the Kareena Kapoor article. By next week they'll be in all the articles. Please any opinions? 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting the section, except that I think the information is interesting enough to keep and can be moved to trivia. Ekantik 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The information provided is interesting and should be kept. If others add, we can condense their sentences. shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.210.183 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm changing my view. They are all un-notable pieces of information except for the state dinner, that can be moved to trivia because it is notable. Ekantik talk 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media appearances 

message: Rani Mukerji → Rani Mukherjee — Subject is referred to as Rani Mukherjee in all reputable sources including article content. Page title was changed with no good reason given. Subject of page move was discussed on Talkpage with no controversial response. This is an uncontroversial move for reasons given. Administrator help is required because NewName page contains superficial edit history and talk page. ekantiK talk 05:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support - for reasons given above, if I am allowed to vote! There is no reason for the Rani Mukherjee article to be named Rani Mukerji as she is noted everywhere in reputable sources as Rani Mukherjee. It is Wikipedia policy to choose an appropriate name for subject articles based on how they are popularly known. ekantiK talk 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
*This is an uncontroversial page move that has been registered at WP:RM for the sole reason of administrator assistance in moving the page, due to an unwarranted and irresponsible move that has left an edit history at the proposed new location. Please support this move so that Rani Mukherjee can have a properly-named article about her on Wikipedia. ekantiK talk 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support - for reasons given above, if I am allowed to vote! There is no reason for the Rani Mukherjee article to be named Rani Mukerji as she is noted everywhere in reputable sources as Rani Mukherjee. It is Wikipedia policy to choose an appropriate name for subject articles based on how they are popularly known. ekantiK talk 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments:
*This is an uncontroversial page move that has been registered at WP:RM for the sole reason of administrator assistance in moving the page, due to an unwarranted and irresponsible move that has left an edit history at the proposed new location. Please support this move so that Rani Mukherjee can have a properly-named article about her on Wikipedia. ekantiK talk 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There was too much personal opinion in the article so I removed some things. There is still some fancruft but I removed as much as I can but it still needs a major re-write. I really don't know how to do this without offending anyone. Im worried about this article because there is a anon on the Kareena Kapoor article who is adding media appearances and is basically writing the article like this article. I liked what Zora did on the Kapoor article, it looks really good. If anybody has any opinions on my edit then please say -- Pa7 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your edits are generally very good. Just one spelling mistake. Congratulations! :) On another note it looks like more facts from unreliable sources have been added in so there may be another cleanup coming soon. Right now I'm going to replace all references to Mukerji with Mukherjee in accordance with the terms of the pagemove request. ekantiK talk 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jesus Cripes! Who's been doing all that un-wikifying and adding unreliable sources?? There's a lot more crap in it, you turn your back for five minutes and find the article has been transformed! ekantiK talk 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hello, Ekantik,
about that template - it has been included earlier, but it was agreed upon that only directors get templates. Discussion for it took place here. Just imagine we had to make a template for all of Amitabh Bachchan's or Sridevi's movies. Best regards, --Plumcouch Talk2Me 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, no problems. :-) ekantiK talk 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Films of Rani Mukerji