Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 4

message: She is an Indian actress. The film is the first one being entirely shot in Australia. Zinta is the leading actress. So it's directly related to her. For an Indian actress shooting abroad for three months is actually part of her career. you can see in Jolie's career section, Jolie moved to New York (not for shooting - not related to her career even), so for Zinta, three months of her life were spent in Melbourne for shooting (so it is related actually to her career). We are not talking about something like Baabul marked B R Chopra's 50 years celebration... and we don't even talk about Salaam Namaste, only about Zinta. In fact, I don't really understand what's the so big deal, just a little line of essential information. You can remove the first part of the statement where it is said that the movie was shot in Australia.
Btw, I don't know why you removed the fact about The Hero being the most expensive film. We use to give information on films, such as in Jolie's page it's written this film is a low-budget and another is a high etc. Why can't we write that Zinta was part of the biggest Bollywood budget? My best regards, --Shahid • Talk2me 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not realise I was making a "BIG DEAL" out of this sentence, which is suddenly seen as essential information. Please, let say that Wikipedia is an on-going project, and in my opinion I felt that that statement was not needed. So what if she spent three months in Melbourne. She's an actress, she has to travel around the world and shoot at different locations. Yes, it is an important aspect of an actors's career but location shooting is a production note. She spent a month in London for Jhoom Barabar Jhoom a month in Chandigarh for Mera Bharat Mahaan, do we add all these notes? As for the Hero thing, I don't remember removing it or the film being "claimed" to be the most expensive, so your gonna have to remind me about this.  -- Pa7 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd rather answer the above question on your user page rather then here, secondly like I said before she is an actress that will go to different places, the fact that Salaam Namaste was shot in entirely in Australia is a credit to the film not the actress. -- Pa7 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you pay attention to your own removals? - I'm sorry for saying that, PA7. --Shahid • Talk2me 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: I see that the PlanetBollywood.com's award has been added to the list of awards that Preity has won. Is this allowed? Can we also add the one BollySpice gave out at the start of this year?
http://www.bollyspice.com/features/view.php/bollyspice-choice-awards.html
--82.45.48.116 06:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She didn't win any award there. --Shahid • Talk2me 08:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Magazines Awards 

message: Making her acting debut in Mani Ratnam's Dil Se (1998), Zinta had her first commercial success with Soldier from the same year, and was widely recognized with Kundan Shah's Kya Kehna (2000). She went to enact different and diverse roles during her career, keeping versatility as an actress. After a number of critically and commercially successful films, she received her first Filmfare Best Actress Award for her performance in Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003), as well as numerous other awards. She had her biggest commercial success with Yash Chopra's romance Veer-Zaara (2004), and was praised for playing roles of Indian modern women in international hits like Salaam Namaste (2005) and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006).
Looks good, needs some fixing but still. I like the new idea that popped up in my head - her roles in SN and KANK are actually roles of modern and independent women. It's good to mention that. --Shahid • Talk2me 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Im not liking the way the page is being filled up with reviews. It looks cluttered and we do not promote actors on Wikipedia. Is there any way of reducing them down? Opinions needed on this. Regards. -- Pa7 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like and it is your personal opinion and your own problem, cause reviews are definitely permitted and even needed. Every review was well selected by me. And what do you mean by reducing? There is only ONE film using two reviews. That's all. I think it's great to add critical comments. See Jolie or whichever FA page. Have you seen the amount of quoted reviews? Huge!
If we say an actor is praised so there is nothing bad in stating our opinions. --Shahid • Talk2me 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I don't like it, you do, so it's kept basically? -- Pa7 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im gonna back off for now, it seems were not in agreement (as usual!). I'll wait until your done with the article, then state my opinions. Also I don't want to get into another massive argument. -- Pa7 17:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Like I said, I'll wait until you've done whatever you need to. I noticed that you added the working icon for this page to your user page, so obviously you've got many plans for the page. No, I do not want the article to be as "miniature as possible" and if that was the intention I was giving out then you've got it wrong. There was a time when I was working on this article to make sure that it stayed on the highest standards, but that was time ago now. You do whatever you need to, I'll state my comments when your done. -- Pa7 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up to you. I just can tell you that everything I'm adding is well selected, permitted and approved by every high class articles users, so I'm not so sure that your doubts regarding the reviews or my new additions will work out. I'm strongly firm and my additions are decisive and are here to stay. Of course, things can be modified, but still. If you have logical doubts, please share - to prevent unnecessary tiffs. Yes I'm working on the page, but it soesn't mean you can't do it. --Shahid • Talk2me 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I said that because there is no professional stations to your disagreement, it's your personal choice to dislike reviews, whereas my additions are well approved and even suggested for usage(I mean the reviews), so even if there were disagreements, I would have a back up. --Shahid • Talk2me 17:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you've misunderstood. My original post was about the quantity of the reviews used, that was the issue I had. Why would I dislike reviews? Well, if the issue does arise in the future then I'll be glad to know you have some "back up" cause of course I don't have any. -- Pa7 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My problem was the fact the article looked cluttered and there were too many reviews. Im not the only one working on Wikipedia or more specifically on this article so to say that I'm firm and my additions are here to stay may indicate to some editors that you have taken some sort of ownership over this article. It kinda reminds me of what Shez15 used to say regarding the Mukerji article. Im sure you would feel the same way if I came out with something like that. You said that you don't own the article on my talk page and Im convinced that you do not intend to take over the article, but what you said before puts me in doubts now. IM NOT ACCUSING YOU OF THIS, I WANT THIS BIT TO BE VERY CLEAR. If I feel the article needs a bit of a clean up and I remove some of the stuff you added for the sake of the article would you mind? I had a read through and I want to do some touch-ups but it MAY involve removing some of the reviews. --Pa7 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: I told you word for word: "I don't own the article", and yes I meant exactly what I said by saying I'm firm, because reviews are permitted and they're very good to illustrate the quantification of appreciation she received for her this or another role. if you think that your comparison between me and Shez offends me - you're wrong. He was adding always all kinds of crap - I'm not doing this. My additions are important. I want the page to be in a high level. Why should the reviews be removed? If you give me a reason which is good enough, I'll accept that. However, you must use the talk page before everything which could be found as exaggerated removal of info. I didn't even bring reviews for every film. As I said and I repeat, see Jolie - to EVERY mentioned film there is an attached review, so what's wrong with Zinta? The reviews come from reputed sources like rediff, and very well known critics. 
You want a clean up? Give reasons, explanations and suggestions here. And please make sure that your removals do not contradict rules and permitted things, and do not contain removals of allowed stuff just because YOU don't like it. I'm aware of the fact that some info can be seen unnecessary, so I'm waiting. I'm anxious to know what the right definition of "touch-ups" is by your standarts.
I want you to help me. Yes I do, cause I think you're a good editor, but I really can't get your intense will to reduce it as much as possible. Again and again and again I say - See Jolie. So much of information is provided there. Why don't you try to add information rather than removing all the time? When Shez was removing things from the page, you were re-adding them, why aren't you trying to add more today?
Plans
I've expanded the para of her columns, and I think we can dedicate a whole section to her own columns. There are some more columns and I want to expand it. I've found response links to her columns - Zinta as a writer/columnist sounds good but I'm definitely not sure. SRK has a section dedicated to his hosting.. so it inspires me.
Some sections will be integrated. The media section was modified by me and looks way better. Have you seen? We have to add reviews for films like SN and KANK which were great and bad ones for Jaanemann and JBJ.
 
I want a Further reading section. That's why I'm looking for available bios of her on the net. I intend to expand her two near escapes from death, which we had to do way before. It is one of the most notable experiences of her life. If it was Jolie, it would be written as a whole section of notes and quotes. Am I wrong? --Shahid • Talk2me 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I didn't like it and for me to remove something just because I DON'T LIKE IT is wrong and I would never do that. As for the RULES in this case, I am not aware of any rules I would violate if I do remove some stuff and I have never violated Wikipedia rules in anyway as far as I know. There are a few things that need correcting or removing in this article which is what I meant by touch-ups. Also you said, if you think that your comparison between me and Shez offends me - you're wrong. I know your not like him and that was not the thing I was saying in my message. Like you said, neither I or you own the article, so I will do whatever I need to to improve it. Im will do my best to make sure it stays in the highest standards. Also, FYI, I have not reduced the article - yet. As for the plans - fine. -- Pa7 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a look at the Angelina Jolie article, and so yes, Im all for the reviews now. There are some grammer tweaks needed and I'll sort them out soon. Also some things may need moving about. -- Pa7 17:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Who is Akash Gandhi?
from the article - 
However, her most notable film out of the above-mentioned was undoubtedly Kal Ho Naa Ho, a tearjerker directed by Nikhil Advani and written by Karan Johar, co-starring along with Shahrukh Khan and Saif Ali Khan. The film was India's second biggest hit after Koi... Mil Gaya, and the year's biggest hit overseas.[3] She played the role of Naina Catherine Kapur, an insecure and angry Indian-American girl, who falls in love with a guy who has a heart disease. Her performance was unanimously praised and won her many awards, including the Filmfare Best Actress Award. Akash Gandhi from Planet-Bollywood proclaimed, "Preity Zinta has given her best performance as an actress. It’s amazing to see how much energy and talent is given in creating her character, Naina."[28]
If we're including this chap in the article, I'm guessing he must  be notable or famous in some way... Google isn't being very helpful either...
Also - 
" Taran Adarsh noted, "After Kya Kehna, Preity Zinta accepts the challenge of portraying an unwed mother yet again in Salaam Namaste. The actor is terrific, delivering her most accomplished performance to date. Her lip locks with Saif will catch a lot of people unaware, but that's the sign of a thorough professional."[34]"
Who is Taran Adarsh?
If indeed these two are notable, I'm more than willing to make a new stub entry for each. If they aren't, then their views should be in the article in the first place.xC | ☎  13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh you're right in a way. There is a problem. Indian film critics are not so talked about on the net. Taran Adarsh is a film critic who was a director at the beginning. He directed some serial in the 90s and later focused on what he is doing now. He has an entry on IMDb. I personally don't appreciate his comments and reviews. As you can see here He was criticised for his reviews. As for Gandhi, I'll look for something. --Shahid • Talk2me 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering....