User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ/Archive 6

New Message

Zzzzzzz....zzzz...someday you may be required to edit some articles...You will not remember this when you wake but certainly "if" you do wake it will be long past November 2019 and by then barbarian apes may have taken over the stronghold and your "services" may no longer be required. Just sleeeep, you are feeling veeery sleepy, please continue to dream of sheep on the plains of New Zealand.. Baaaa.... ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will do certainly. Oh I wouldn't ask the league of copyeditors more like the "league of snoozers", your're unlikely to get a response from them until at least November 2019. Last time I looked, seemed like it had improved considerably. I'm reading though this evening rather than editing much, currently reading about a famine in Bihar in 1873! Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. First flaw I've found is the missing information at the beginning of 2001. The article appears to tiptoe around her unsucessful films and focus only on the films which won her acclaim or were a success. For neutrality purposes you need to balance that out, you don';t have to dwll on it too much but a notable slump in her career needs some addressing it cannot be bypassed as it leaves me with the impression of cherry picking. You need to fill in some details about these films as a factual account whether they were a failure or not. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thasnk you so much!!! Talk to you later, I must go now... Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

I really appreciate your kind words, my dear friend!!! Thanks for the barnstar and for being my friend! Thank you!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hello, how are you? I thought I'd drop in and say HI to you. How is everything? I've noticed that you mostly work on the Kareena Kapoor article, hope everything is going well with that. Are you working on anything else? Best wishes. -- Pa7 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I filled in a bit, now its been reworded that section is OK although you could use a quote perhaps from one of the films or fill in some inforamtion on the characters played etc. I'll gradually go through it and sort out phrasing etc and let you know if there any other areas for improvement ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yeh university is hard work! I've literally had enough! To get Kapoor and Mukerji to GA status would be good, especially now that Zinta is offically a FA article. I hope it does well, if you need any help please give me a nod. I should be back fully by July, It's nice to be back for the time being and catching up with everyone. Best regards. -- Pa7 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How's Mister Rahul feeling?

Hey I returned to Bebo! I'd already forgot how it looked. The Asoka part was so confusing... Tell me, do you know who the princess she played was? Was she a historical figure? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Of course pal!! The career section is almost perfect (I guess so, I'll have another look), the other sections need to be worked on. Your planned process is great. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I'd be happy to take a part in making Kareena more shapely and attractive :) Will take a look soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Heyyy!! I'm fine - do I really seem to be different? It's just I'm very busy... But I'm the same one LOL! So here it goes:

• First of all, these two spaces look great as they are. In Chameli and Fida, the matter was the role, not the story. I think every addition of a plot can make it more and more complicated. However, you can describe more her own role if you want. I mean, see the KHNH space in Zinta's article, we don't have a story description, but her role is more elaborated: "an Indian-American woman who falls in love with..." - so what you can do is add info re her role. I would say, do that for Chameli, if at all, - in Fida it seems to be redundant. Not only was the film non-notable, the only thing it was known for is Kareena's villainous turn, so any further addition is unnecessary. As for Chameli, I still think it will make it complicated - but if you really want to - you can do something like, "her role as a prostitute who meets a young widower and gets close to him..." - just an example on how it should be done. Generally I think it's unneeded LOL!!
• Femina.... mmm... Could you please elaborate? What was she doing there? Only one song? Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I really don't think it's notable. In fact, I was thinking it's time to remove the KWK and Indian Idol appearances as well, which was suggested during Zinta's FAC... Preity's new releases are soon coming all together, and the article is going overly long... So I'm now making drafts on how to reduce things and rewrite them well. The same applies to Bebo, after the phenomenal performance of Geet in JWM, she receives many offers, which will have to be described on her article, so things have to be calculated in a more sensitive way, especially considering that it is on its way to become GA (inshallah! :)). BTW, are there wikilinks for this Femina? Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Films

Hi. A quick imdb check shows they are completely different films. See here. Dont worry the editor concerned also thought Queen of Bollywood was encyclopedic I don't know what hes doing. I would recommend you create the page where the redirect is. You don't need an admin to restore it - just remove the redirect and fill in the page ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I vaguely remember it at the time and it was considered too crystal ball right? I would suggest asking User:SkierRMH to restore it. If you can make it adequate and add some factual information I don't see why he wouldn't restore it. The new James Bond doesn't come out till Christmas and already its longer than most of the other articles! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been very busy on African topics, particularly geography, wildlife and conservation Minkébé National Park, Nechisar National Park, Inhambane, Tondon, Abolition of slavery in Seychelles, Dichrostachys cinerea, Lobi (a Burkina tribe) etc. I'm currently setting up all the nationla parks of Africa and creating templates which will keep my busy to the core. Aside from that the new WP:GEOBOT group will take some time. I'll try to look into Kareena tomorrow if I can. Hope you are well ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to see the 2002–2003 section filled out and cover the films individually. It displays bias in that you adequately cover every film and mention reviews when it is a success but fail to give the same level of info. A good article would cover both equally regardless of whether it failed or not. I'll see if I can fill out that section when I have a mo ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it later. I didn't mean to fill it out completely, just to pay a bit more attention to why certain films were not a success, examination of character roles etc. Trust me it won;t be boring or prolonged, I'll see what I can do. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I've looked into it and see what you mean about some of the films they seemed well just blah. Not really a lot you can say about some of them. 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few changes. I'd like you to find some other "hottest lists" other than rediff in the media seciton. I feel you rely too much on their polls and could perhaps mention any othe rnotable lists she appears on like in the Zinta article. The article overall has made a lot of progress from a few months ago and the majority of thos POV issues before have been well addressed. It still needs polishing here and there but it should be just about reayd for GA. I'd check the refencing though just to ensure each reference has the correct details and notes. Best ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You know something?

I missed someone... Guess whom???? ;) As for Kambakth Ishq - don't worry - we'll later create an article in the redirect page, I've saved it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite understand you - hold on! My time on Wikipedia is also gonna be significantly reduced. Yeh it is the same except for a few modifications if I'm correct, which will have to be worked on - it actually looks the same as it was before it was deleted. I think the Kapoor article will have to be somehow shaped before a GAN is started, I'm yet to look at the different parts of the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As fir restoring the article, I don't know if that it possible after someone recreated the article. Not that it matters actually. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be Rahul, everything is recorded in the history, it should be on an admins log if they look. Have you asked skier? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The copydits are great - and the article is far better. Some bits were problematic, now I think the part of Kyon Ki is too long, considering the film was not that notable in her career. Also, I don't why two reviews are needed when they say practically the same things. I'll look at it later, I'm just very busy now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are happy with the copyedits. If you have actual information to add to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Kambakth Ishq which would "de-crystal ball" it then do it. As for the article, if you are discussing a film that failed in an actors article if you include a sentence that it was criticised for ... as long as it is a brief evlauation in the context given is perfectly within acceptability as long as it improves an understanding which I think it does. I didn't have the time last night to copy edit all of it, its probably best several editors work on it anyway, but it should be up to GA quality I think. Have you peer reviewed it yet? Ah I see, you want be to edit it first. I'll leave the article now and return later tonight and give it one last go through for now. Then put it up for a peer review tomorrow. Also about the "hot awards" I strongly suggest you blaance it out with polls particularly from Filmfare, Indiatimes, IndiaFM so it doesn't wrongly give the impression it is just a website ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC) ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also a contradication that she comes from a prominent Kapoor film family of actors, her mother actor etc etc yet is is considered a family taboo???? Could you please clear that up? Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't finished yet on the article myself so I wouldn't put it up for review yet anyway ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My take

I see Blof is still working very hard on it, so I won't make any modifications as of yet.

Please don't be eager to take it to PR yet. Blof is one editor who can judge every article intelligently. Look his talk page. I've always preferred to ask for his opinions to taking a PR. Blof's writing skills are amazing, but he is not that familiar with the topic, so some things must be cleared up. As said, I will go through it later. And after that, PR. Some thoughts though:

• JSML review appears to be redundant to me. It was a non-notable film in Kapoor's career, probably, along with Talaas and Dosti. The trick is not that she was criticised for this film. The trick is to present the main idea correctly. I mean, MDK and MPKDH, which are big house films produced by the most successful banners in India (not just Bollywood), failed. Her performances/roles were sharply criticised. So I think writing about that and the mention of JSML at the top of the para would suffice.
• Chameli plot is damn long. Same goes to Bewafaa. And that considering that Bewafaa was a failure.
• Yuva in my opinion should not be mentioned. She had a very small role, I hardly saw her in the film. I think it can be described in one line - "she had a supporting role in...which won...".
• Two reviews for a film like Kyon Ki (which are very similar), while only one for a film like Chameli, is pathetic. Second review should be removed, especially considering that it's wrotten by our dear but too frequent critic Taran Adarsh. (I seriously suspect he is in love with both Preity and Kareena.)
• Dosti? mm well don't know. To me it seems unnecessary, not because it was a failure, but because, again, it's just so non-notable. But I would still say, here I don't have that strong feelings about its inclusion.
• I think Jab We Met surpassed K3G. I'm not sure. Could you please check?
• Filmfare rankings need refs. Let's see what happens to the "In the media" section. Needs work - that's for sure.
• That's all for now, and that's too through a quick glance. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I did want to fill out the 2006 section and cleanup the latter sections a little a bit as I feel you needed to exmaine it a bit more fully (but summarised of course) to give a balanced account. I know some films are more high profile than others but I think in an encyclopedia you need to try to cover them. But yes indeed as Shahid said there is only so much I can do with a highly restricted personal knowledge of her work. If I was familiar with her performances, I would try to examine her characterization a bit more in places and analyse how she gets into characters and pulls off different roles etc e.g the prostitute, muslim riot girl etc. I;ve said it to MSPraveen too with director articles too if you can research how they get into chaarcter or perform certian cinematic tecnhniques to maximum effect in films this is an important part of their work and should therefore try to be covered. Often actors will research topics before they ge tinto chaarcter etc. Also I would mention one or two actual grosses of the films as in the Zinta article as generally it only says was a "commerical failure or a commerical success". Perhaps for the highest grossing films report a figure (idf Giro will now permit BOI of course). Feel free to continue, I'll let you know tonight when I'll edit it again to avoid edit conflicts, Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S for a film industry as enormous as Bollywood you;d think there would be thousands of film critics!! Why it is always Taran Adarsh who seems to review them in Indian LOL ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let Shahid go through it then -if he has any major issues with what I did last night I'm all ears its probably best he looks through it now to assert notbaility of coverage etc. Once this is done I'll try to give it a final polish befroe a PR ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy these days. Rahul, please take care of the points. I would like to go through it after you are all done guys. Blof said he wanted to make further editing today. So go ahead Blof, and take your time. And then Rahul, and then I'll see. As of now, my comments stand so they can be addressed by Rahul. The more calculated our work is, a better result will come eventually. As Rahul Said, he will wait for you to make your edits, nobody will catch in between.

As for Taran Adarsh, he is the most famous film critic, we can do nothing with that, that's why he somehow always comes first. Although bloggers don't like him that much because of him criticising different films which are generally considered good, newspapers always turn first to Adarsh to ask for his opinion of different matters, as well as film-makers who give him a copy of the film. That's why he is the first critic to review Bollywood films (generally two days before the the release). He's just like the Indian Roger Ebert in terms of importance. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Started a rough copyedit. Many parts of the article confused me. Removed as of now Yuva, a few unneeded quotes. Sources for Filmfare rankings and Dosti BO status are needed. Many unnecessary details. I'm very busy now, but I would appreciate it if you took care of my above comments. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey not at all - take your time. We don't have to hurry all the time. The most important thing now is to raise its standard, does not matter how long it will take.

PS: Have you seen the stills of Heaven on Earth? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indiafm.com images

Hello there. I'd a question on Image:KareenaKapoor.jpg that has an OTRS ticket for permission to use all photographs with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters. I wanted to use this particular image for Rang De Basanti. I felt that this image will just add more value to the article. I'd quickly asked Blofeld about this and he felt that it might be possible to use this image under the same OTRS ticket. Since you are the uploader, we felt it best to ask you directly about this. Should you have the time to answer this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Btw, I've noticed your work on several Indian cinema articles. It is my pleasure to meet you here. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. So many thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it. I had plans to utilize that particular image for now, but since you clarified on the usage policy I might consider using other such images to add more graphics to the Indian cinema articles. I'm sure, just like you, that the image was taken by their photographers directly and this image is no way a screenshot/promotional images from the producers. I've uploaded it onto Commons. You may view it here. I felt that the OTRS ticket is the same for even this image and uploaded with the same ticket number. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please feel free to make changes to this, should I have committed any mistake in the formalities. Thanks once again! Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

After uploading the image and writing the above message here, I realized my folly. I should probably have requested you to complete the upload process for this image. I guess the uploaded image will face deletion anyways because of an unverified OTRS upload or something. Can you possibly upload this image for me? In the future, I was hoping to know the process to do this? I ask you this because I don't want to keep asking you every once in a while (maybe you could be busy in real life). Thanks Mspraveen (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I was caught up in real life and also forgot about the email that was to be sent for the OTRS volunteers to tag the image with the ticket number. I just did it. Thank you so much for fixing this. I really appreciate you writing in detail about the procedure to do this. Have a good weekend. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey!y!y!y!

The work is going well - I'm so busy though. You're doing well, only a bit of my opinion - why is the JWM image so blurry? And it doesn't really present the article's description of her role... It's just my opinion, not that it matters in this case, but I'm sure you can find a far better image than the one placed on the article now. Best, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to be careful. Your last edits do not really improve the article (...). The expansion of two of her first 2006 films, which are clearly non-notable, is unnecessary and not written that well. Also, it is incorrect to say that the former was an economic success, because it wasn't; it was an average performer with little gross. Under the same claim, I can't see how it is a multi-starrer. In other words, the previous version, when it consisted of a small sentence mention, is above and beyond and perfectly fine.

Secondly, you have to be consistent and try to avoid such tension as the one you created in the Aitraaz bit. You've added the Aitraaz co-stars. Ignoring the fact that such an addition is redundant, there is a second part to the sentence -- Hulchul - so there it will also have to be mentioned.

? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rahul, Kareena was not praised in particular for her role in Chameli. She can't be - she was the main protagonist, so it's obvious - she was the only one who actually got praise, and throughout the film, only Rahul Bose and Kapoor shared frame, so it doesn't really make sense. Apart from this, leaving Chameli apart, such a calim has to be specifically discussed and noted in the source one way or the other, and reflect the majority view.

Also a note regarding the Verve magazine list of influential women from India - somebody may question it, because there is even no article for the magazine on here. That was the first thing I thought of when I saw this and thought of adding it to the Zinta article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey BD!:) Chameli, if it was received well please add. Re Yaadein and Ajnabee I think a description of her roles is not needed, because these films were big failures, and are very non-notable in her career. She herself was just unnoticed (even doesn't matter whether praised or criticised), that's the fact, just another film in her repertoire, which nobody cares if it was panned, praised etc. Ajnabee was important to Akki, Aitraaz for example was important for Priyanka. Take now Khushi - Kareena is the lead, but still, it deserves merely a title mention. That's what I mean. It's just like trying to add films like Farz/YRHPK on Preity's article, and Bichoo/Mehndi on Rani's. Just... non-notable... A bit like MDK is written well, and is needed. It is a big project, a failure... A failure, but still notable.

Which takes our conversation to the following analysis:

Not only Blof, but I also think that mentioning failures is important. But in the 06 bit, there was a nice and short mention, so it was fine - the expansion OTOH was unneeded. There is a big difference between non-notable and a failure. MDK and Tashan are big failures, but they are notable. So we actually do mention her failures, but describing non-notable films like Chup Chupke (also saying it was a success, while it wasn't), is wrong; it just adds nothing, reduces the readability and practicality of the article (in addition to being not so well written). Films like MDK and MPKDH strengthened her, Chup Chup Ke and 36 China Town just did nothing - just like Yaadein and Ajnabee, only additional flops and poorly received in her list (which every other actor has). The only reason they have to be mentioned is the flow - the section would look a bit isolated without mentioning them. It's just like now trying to expand Talaash: The Hunt Begins..., Jeena Sirf Merre Liye, Khushi... Huh... certainly impossible. Dosti also seems idiotic to me (IMHO) when it's mentioned - but = it's another story, because it did well abroad. In terms of prose the article is better, but in terms of content... Asoka is good (I liked it; should've been expanded long time ago, you know, first Best Actress nomination), the 2002-03 bit is good, but other parts still need work. I tell you that as someone who is very familiar with the subject. It has to be matter-of-fact, focused. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only has it improved, I think it qualifies for a GA now. I've seen TPTM only, and I loved it, or maybe I just missed Rani. I liked her in 2002-05, but that she disappointed me somehow, and she still is yet to make her big comeback. It's so annoying that none of Preity's films has released yet. When does Bebo's next film get released? And which films have you seen recently? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine but very busy. Real life commitments force me to stay out of here. Hey Rahul but Blofeld's already nominated it!!! It is on GAN, that's why I was stressed (WP:GAN#Theatre, film and drama). Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What I'd suggest is first of all mixing those polls as I suggested previously and anything of note from Times if India etc that would add to it rather than purely rediff. Thats should flesh it out a bit. Other this this, what about events? Has she presented or been involved in any media events, gameshows etc? What is the nature of her media personality is she bold and out there in the media or does she prefer to keep a more quiet profile? I'd suggest using the Jolie or Zinta article to get some ideas of the sort of things that could be used to expand it. Oh yes I nominated it a while back as it is a clear GA and should pass. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that yes, but even if it doesn't nothing to worry about. Secondly, the article is great now. Thirdly, it will take ages until someone takes the time to review it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately some articles get reviewed within a day and other in two months. Anyway I had hoped the "League of Snoozers" would have come out of their coffins by now and edited it. Clearly not until 2019 as I said ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes LOL I know - it's all because of you, your belief and your hard work. Congrats, and keep it going! Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, I told you it was GA standard didn't I. With a fair bit of development I don't see why it couldn't go all the way ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Blof!! I also told him, not only you LOL ;)))))) It makes me so happy that out project is evolving that way, that our actresses are also receiving recognition. It's time to understand that there are Preity and Kareena, not only Angelina and Katie :) Ain't it Rahul? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Next summer? Why next summer? I think it could reach FA within a few months with some work. Remember the Zinta ordeal was an exceptionally long process. I'd be willing to help develop it all the way but I need some more sources! But I;d recommned peer reviewing it immediately to get some new eyes on it to plan the FA ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. In that case put it up for a peer review immediately and try to get some input from those who contributed to the Zinta process. The problem we face with articles on Bollywood actors is that many people are not inspired by the content unfortunately in that it isn't one of those traditional encyclopedic articles where you can add many different aspects from different books etc. If it is sound enough, I personally don't think there is anything stopping it. My only recommendation would be to improve the early life and media sections and try to examine her acting style on certain films a bit more ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources for all of that? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So then it sounds good, only needs copyediting. The tabloid favourite is quite POV and will have to be sourced very specifically, becuase - A) Her controversies, all of that speaks for itself. B) It can be said about every actor and looks quite superficial and over-the-top (I did notice that on Jolie's page, but nevertheless). Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Initally sounds good particularly the biogrpahy part which is the sort of content I'm talking about. However the last sentence is very poor, much like a blog. A tabloid favourite in particular would beed a considerable reowrding -too problematic which tabloid, which editor, favourite above other actors etc.. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what I say... I also back in time wanted to add it on Zinta's article, because she is really a tabloid's favourite, and this is a perfect description for her... But at some point I got that I'm fed up with the factor, especially in light of the fact that: A) Her controversies, media involvement, appreciation etc., all speak for themselves. B) There is no editor on Wikipedia who would accept such a POV addition which even if sourced, is merely POV of the writer. We are not here to glorify her - the info presents it all. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and yes I too liked the first part of your text, which is very informative, only needs minor breaches. Could you please show me the sources Rahul? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the article but have reworded it. You'll need to reference it and hopefully examine it a bit further ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I concur with Shahid in that while the tabloid favourite is probably true, it is the sort of wording that raises eyebrows from the "community" . Best ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there is one editor that will totally invalidate this source if he sees that because it's a POV of someone who is not even a journalists. I'll now find a better source - as of now, Blof had done that very well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD !! Go for it. I also have new evidence from a book I have found to add to her early life ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"The media makes her out to be this brat because she is her own person and says whatever is on her mind." - on a second thought, it is too good, we can't lose it. So it can be left, as o now, I'll be looking for. It has to be done via <kareena kapoor media> search - LOL. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Over the past several years, Kapoor has developed a nonchalant relationship with the media and has gained a reputation for discussing her on-screen or off-screen life with the press without any reservations." - hey Rahul why don't understand? LOL! This is one piece of brilliant text by Blof. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It means that she is very open and very indifferent to any media speculation she bumps into - exactly what the source suggests. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "since" is fine too - it makes it flow brilliantly from the previous sentence -- Oh I like this developement! Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see somehow the reason behind it included. "... Media speculations made Kapoor develop a nonchalant relationship with the media, as a result of which she has gained a reputation...." - just a thought... Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, sometimes it is easier to see how it looks in the article itself, I hope you don't mind me trying to expand it. I'm about to add something which I think gives an invaluable insight to the "family taboo". P.s I'm having server trouble!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries amigo. I just added a new paragraph from an Encyclopedia Britannica book source where her father is idirectly asked if acting is a "taboo for women". He claims it is the incompatibility of acting and womens family duties rather than disregarding women acting itself. I think it is very important to add this and make this clear given that this precedent plays a very important part in her background. I'm slightly confused now though that in the interview her father claims both he and her mother fully supported her acting career and is proud of her, yet that other reference indicates this is why her mother left him. Do you think he is hiding something? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you peer review it then? I reckon I could have it up to featured status within a week if I allocate some time towards it. I'll work on it gradually over the next few days, I think it is actually closer than you might imagine. Of course we don't know what other people will throw at us at an FAC as what happened with the zinta nominations which is why I want it peer reviewed asap ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review has started here. As for the Globus, I really don't know - many actors become ambassadors of different products. Adding it in a random way would not help, but if you know about something unique related to it: a controversy, some noble cause, so it will be very useful. Actually we can present it on the peer review page later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'm glad you appreciate my efforts but much of what I added last night seems to have been reverted, even book references. appreciate the reverting was in good faith, but I'd rather not spend time working on something that isn't productive, there is too much to do elsewhere to have work removed ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Just for the record I am cool with most of the changes, but I hadn't had the chance to read it through afterwards last night though and check for any unneccesary info. What I meant to say is just there is such a massive amount of work to do all across wikipedia on the rubbish on here and building up the years in Hindi film etc that I want to work on an article where not a second is wasted on improving something. I think Shahid is acutely more aware of what they throw at you at FAs than even I am, given the time he spent in discussion before so I'll trust his judgement on what other editors will sniff at. Major issues within an article I can identify myself and try to correct, but there were issues addressed by certain editors towards the Zinta article at the FA which I thought were completely unneccesary and Shahid had to do a lot more work than he would have had to do in a normal situation. This is why I hope the peer review can bring up any issues which other editors have who are considerably stricter than I am. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've heard about Smita Patil of course - I think somewhere in the future an article can be created for that award. "Launced her own clothing line"? That's obviously notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Its gradually getting there. Have you found a reference fot the accompanying her sister to the filming yet? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Give it time, it may take a week or two before we get a good review of it. Usually reviewers are quicker than the sleeping League of Snoozers. LOL!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK, its pretty warm here today though I feel like I do when you have a night out and wake up feeling really dehydrated!! Hehe. What sort of music are you into? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a classic rock guy, very guitar driven. Like ballads and blues, Clapton and Hendrix etc. I've had the song Cocaine (song) going around in my head for days!! ALso like country and a bit of jazz and r n b/soul, James Brown etc. Love Hawaiian music and classical spanish guitar too. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work - one concern -- "a reputation for discussing her professional or private life with the press without any reservations." - this needs to be said in the sources - we don't have to be left concluding that from her interviews and "nonchalant" answers. It has to be written clearly to understand that it is true. Only one of the sources did describe her like that, from what I see. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh forget that now - think about more important things - "The Unforgettable" show begins tomorrow in Toronto - don't tell me you will miss that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OOOHH I hate you!! ;))) Well if it came to here I'd probably already know that, but I haven't heard of any ticket sales in here... And haven't found nothing mentioned about Melbourne either... :( Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

R-a-h-u-l!!! How dare you?! Not only do you go (while I don't), you also get tickets free of charge!!! Oh that's so unfair! You (...)!! LOL!! Well enjoy the show and don't forget share your memories with me (and if possible bring some pictures LOL ;)) Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. No I'm 160 miles west of London. I live near Cardiff the capital of Wales, in a coastal town called Barry. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)