User talk:LuckyS

Welcome!

Hello, LuckyS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Salman Khan

Hello, LuckyS, first of all, I responded on Salman Khan's discussion site. Maybe you have a look? Second, here are my comments to Khan's trivia section. In order to prevent an edit war, let's exchange opinions.

• "Salman is also the new Brand Ambassador for Red Tape Shoes, the brand of footwear from Mirza Tanners Limited, as well as for Dollar Club Undergarments." Stating that a person is brand ambassador for various products is fine, but naming the products is indirect advertising. There are several opinions on that, but generally, I follow all the other articles of Indian actors and actresses and don't name products.

~Ans- Trivia is written with a range of readers in mind who know little about these events, for example a reader in Africa, who would find it interesting to know whether Salman endorses any products. Maybe the brand of footwear from xyz can be deleted, else the fact will be meaningless. (Not all readers have expertise on the subject like for instance, you do)

Perception differs geographically, agewise and several other factors. Encyclopedias thereby include extensive Information about a subject to educate all, Dictionaries however, carry the definitions alone.

This is not about perception or social differences, but about indirect adverising by naming brands. Same debate has been going on with some no-name on Diya Mirza's talk page. Mentioning that he *is* a brand ambassador is okay, but *what* brands, not.

• Blue Jeans, Tight Abs: Khan loves tight fitting Levis 501 jeans. He is a dedicated bodybuilder and is famous for taking off his shirt in films to reveal his chiselled physique. Mentioning that Khan is a dedicated bodybuilder is okay, but "blue jeans, tight abs" and "chiselled physique" are not neutral. I'd crop them.

~Ans- The Phrasing means- Khan Loves wearing Blue Jeans as he has mentioned in various Interviews about his favorite outfits, Tight abs go with him while being shirtless. -Can be rephrased with the whole explanation.

Okay, will rephrase it. Besides, it's a copyright violation anyway. See here [1]

• Most Handsome Hunk: Was voted 7th best-looking man in the world and the best looking man in India by "People" Magazine, U.S.A.: Mentioning that he was listed by People Magazine is fine, but Most Handsome Hunk is not neutral and encyclopedic.

~Ans- The reason- He has been cited as the Most Handsome Hunk several times by the media, He has been winning the most good looking Hunk polls for several years, Citations can be found. In India, The phrase is synonymous to his name, hence it is a part of the Trivia section. You have to give the guy credit for being voted the best looking Man in India And 7th most good looking man in the world, beating the likes of Antonio Banderas and several others. The fella is a Hunk so the phrasing is justified. We are not writing about a common man here. Still if you feel the same, I shall wait till I find a citation for you. (yet another link to be added) He's a Film star and if he wasn't the most Handsome Hunk he wouldn't have been chosen by the People's magazine in the first place.

The People Magazine poll is okay, but "Most Handsome Hunk" or "Most Handsome Actor" is not exactly encyclopaedic, especially since Hrithik Roshan [2] [3], Akshay Kumar [4] and John Abraham [5] where also honoured with the title. Besides that, it's POV. There are surely people out there who think Salman Khan to be not handsome at all.

• Manages to deliver a hit when counted out. Has starred in the highest earning films of 1989, 1991, 1994, 1999, and 2005. The years are okay, but manages a hit when counted out? That's Point-of-view - not all people believe that he has been counted out.

~Ans- This contribution by a fellow Editor has relevance to the years gone by, when a Hostile Media would be quick to count him out in case of a few failures at the Box Office, and then he would bounce back in a big way to silence them. Of late, though He has been recognised as a Superstar by the Top Industry Critics. -Manages to deliver a hit when counted out-Can be deleted.

Okay, will cut it.

• The Title- Prem: After Maine Pyar Kiya, Salman's lead roles have been named Prem several times in his career, Including Hum Aapke Hain Koun, Andaz Apna Apna, Hum Saath Saath Hain, Biwi No.1 and No Entry, just to name a few.

The other Prominent actor is Amitabh Bachchan who has immortalised the Angry young man Titled Vijay on the Silver Screen. A first-name that seemingly stuck to him forever.

People can read: there's a filmography listed with all his character names, so listing movies with him playing "Prem" again is redundant. Also, it's not a "title" like "King", but the name of a character. The comment about Amitabh Bachchan belongs into his article. So, what do you think? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

~Ans- What I think is, the encyclopedic entry of a film star will always appear to be filmi by default, it cannot look plain jane like a Priest's for Example.

If articles of other actors are too bland, can't help it, Salman's portfolio is naturally spicy.

On the contrary: Encylopaedic articles shouldn't be spicy at all - they should be "plain janes". Read the Encyclopaedia Britannica recently? If the article looks neutral, bland and devoid of POV, it's just right. They are no filmi magazine articles.

"Title" as a Bollywood characters name, not just a character from a normal walk of life.

"King", "Queen", "Mister", "Madame", "Professor", these are titles. Prem is a name.

Amitabh and Salman are the only two actors to have noticably played these Title's successfully for so long. That is why, a joint mention.

I suspect this to show a connection to another well-known actor in order to accentuate another actor's importance. If Salman Khan played a character named Prem xx times, one can state that. In Khan's article. The same goes for Amitabh Bachchan in his article or for Raj Kapoor, who has played a dozen Rajs, or Shahrukh Khan who seems to like Rahuls. If there's actually a connection between the usage of Salman Khan and Amitabh Bachchan and their popularization of their names "Prem" and "Vijay", it's not merely trivia and desparately needs references.

Without bringing it to the notice of the reader that, He played Prem several times, an Interesting Trivia point will be missed. (The Filmography list is too long to hold attention to minor details) An example also has to be there to support it, that's why I had written a whole History of Prem to explain every aspect of it.

Certainly it will add value as an entry to Amitabh's page, It is a verifiable fact and the readers enjoy reading about these trivia's.

I do understand your point though, the middle path is to sound neutral but not at the cost of verifiable and valuable information.

Will incorporate changes keeping that in view as you might have noticed some of it already.

Best Regards-

-LuckyS

Stay civil

Hello, LuckyS, I noticed you contributions to Salman Khan's talk page. While I realize, there is always someone on Wikipedia you don't agree with, please try and stay friendly, or at least, polite. See here [6] for Wikipedia's policy on the subject. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cruise

The article on Tom Cruise has never been featured and if you have a look on the talk page, you will realize that they have problems there, too. And about that blockbuster thingy - even on Tom Cruise' article, the word "blockbuster" has no capital letters.

You said: If the article stays civil and no vandalism occurs, one may stay civil. Repeated twisting of truth and facts to falsely implicate someone will have extraordinary reactions to say the least.

Wp:Policy [7] requests to always stay civil and especially under extraordinary circumstances.

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 18:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning on Salman Khan

Please be civil. Also please read, What Wikipedia is not . Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ganeshk (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please

For this, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

-Kindly, do not look at the affects alone, try looking into the vandalism that occurred and warning the causes as well, Thanks.

--LuckyS 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)LuckyS

Bollywood / Indian Cinema

Hello, LuckyS, I think I know what you want to say, but the wording is a bit bumpy, especially, since the Bollywood article has most information about location and everything, and info on the renaming of cities really belongs into the city article:

... in Indian Cinema (The Hindi/Urdu film industry, based in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) also popularly known as Bollywood).

How about:

Khan [...] remains one of the most successful movie stars in the Indian movie industry, Bollywood.

What do you think?

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. The links you added still need to get a proper shape. If you don't know how to do that, I'll do it.

Problem with the whole Mumbai/Bombay thing is: if we explain every detail that a Westerner might not get, the article gets very crowded. I think a link to Mumbai will do. Khan's page shouldn't explain city names. Information about the entire Mumbai/Bombay thing is included in the corresponding article.

Anyway, how about:

Khan [...] remains one of the most successful movie stars in the Indian movie industry, Bollywood, based in Mumbai.

Doesn't sound so bumby and we can avoid the brackets. For information on the city, people have to click on the link. After all, that's what they ar for.

About the refences: For an example, note the references given under "legal troubles". First URL of legal troubes (September 28, 2002 ...) has a large number 6, the next one has a smaller number 1. If you check the the text during editing, you will relaize, that number 1 has a small template included as reference, which provides the date the reference was accessed, title and so on. If you use this template, the reference will be added as a proper source at the bottom of the page. Generally, in articles, this template is used. It's a bit more complicated, but it's more precise. If you add a reference for anything, please add the template instead of the plain link.

If you have any questions, well, you know the way to my talk page. :)

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Lucky,

I think the problem with this:

... Indian Cinema. (The Hindi/Urdu film industry, based in Mumbai, also, popularly known as Bollywood.

is: in no Hollywood article it is mentioned that Hollywood "is American cinema, based in Los Angeles, popularly known as Hollywood". If people want to know where Hollywood is based, they just click on the article.

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please let go of the article

Lucky, you seem to think that it's your job to "protect" Salman Khan against the fans of other actors, and that any attempt to tone down the fangush you've added to the article is a dastardly plot by other fans. It is true that in India, people seem to be "fans" the way people in other countries are sports fans ... the film world is seen as a competition in which only one actor or actress can be Number One, and it's the job of fans to build up their idol and denigrate everyone else's. When your idol wins, you win.

That is NOT what's going on here. The editors doing the most work on the Indian cinema articles just aren't fans that way. We like watching movies -- old, new, by many directors, featuring many actors and actresses. We don't care who's hot or who's not. It's all ephemeral. Today's hearthrobs are going to go the way of Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt ... dead, gone, forgotten to everyone but fans of old movies and encyclopedia article writers. Well, in an encyclopedia, the article for Salman Khan should be just as cool and neutral as the article for Raj Kapoor.

You can't just declare your ownership of the Salman Khan article and revert any other edits as vandalism. See WP:OWN. The rest of us have been fairly hands-off so far, hoping that you'd get involved in the project as a whole and learn to work cooperatively. That doesn't seem to be happening. Please reconsider your attitude and perhaps do some work on other articles. There is so much work to do on Indian cinema articles and you could help. Zora 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Please let go of the article?== That's what one should be requesting you instead.

As a neutral user and a human being, it is my right to protect any subject from vested political interests in the form of vandalism. Today its only me, tomorrow there will be many likewise, who will notice the kind of shape that was given to Salman Khan's article, since its inception. Yours and Plumcouch's contributions to Salman Khan's article in particular can be best described as biased and distorted if not vandalism. Before I started contributing, Salman Khan's article was described in exactly 4 sentences. And all contributions to it were thwarted by Plumcouch and users like you. A student who has scored 95% marks cannot be credited with 45% marks, similarly Salman Khan's filmography can be checked at boxofficeindia.com- where you will also find the difference between a Hit, Super Hit, Blockbuster and All time Blockbuster film. Besides, you can find their entries, definitions in wikipedia and any dictionary or thesaurus. So where is the fangush/ fancruft? (there are no such words, by the way) And since when is Indian Cinema credited as Bollywood alone? It is not an official term yet. I am sorry, but you edits were totally unreasonable and there is only one term to describe it. However anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, new or old doesn't matter as long as the content is true and verifiable. Have I stated anywhere that I own this article? Vandalism is vandalism, whether it is by you or anyone. You need to prove that my contributions to the Salman Khan article are non verifiable to begin with. Whereas I can prove it that your edits to the same are nothing short of vandalism. As far as Indian Cinema is concerned, contributions will follow only after safeguarding Salman Khan's article. I believe in promoting truth and encouraging new editors. By the way, Raj Kapoor's article is probably one in a very poor shape. Only 4 paragraphs compressing his illustrious career, its a pity. If this remains the order of Wiki' editors, people will dismiss its claims of being an unbiased encyclopedia.

• Perhaps users from the first world wan't to make sure that the third world cinema stays down and thus is sparing no effort to supress its credibilities.

You can be more effective, contributing for American Movies. Think global, act local.