This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Sorry but I worked hard on it. If you see the pages of Tom Cruise etc, you'll see how much the controversies are expanded. As you also can see at the history of this talk page, User:Plumcouch suggested to expand controversies, while you supported her suggestions, Pa7.
Small... It was actually small because of the removal made by Pa7. In geberal, each controversy id a different one and has to be separated as per its case name.
Best regards, -- Shahid • Talk2me 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
No one said that if we add that to SN, we have to add that to MBM and JBJ. The most notable thing about this fact is that she is the first Indian actress to shoot a film entirely in Australia and she was part of a film that was shot entirely in Australia... What do you think?
As per The hero, look your last four edits, the first one of them shows how you removed this fact. Don't you pay attention to your own removals? -- Shahid • Talk2me 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
I meant for other stars and films? -- 82.45.48.116 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
If we say an actor is praised so there is nothing bad in stating our opinions. -- Shahid • Talk2me 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want it either. We are not in agreement because you apparently want the page to be as miniature as possible.
There is a difference between your dislike and my liking. You don't like it cause it's your opinion and you personally don't find favor in it. On the other hand, my opinions are based on many high class articles and are approved everywhere. I do want the page to reach to the highest possible level. Why not?
You know your opinions are important to me, cause you're the only one who works on this page except me, so what exactly do you have problems with, and what are you skeptical about? Shahid • Talk2me 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Um... you said I'm strongly firm and my additions are decisive and are here to stay. I might not agree with what's been added or written in the article so it's be forward to say that isn't it? Not just me but there might be other users that might not agree with what has been added so saying that there here to stay is a bit pushy, isn't it? Nevertheless, I will edit whenever I feel I need to and it may include re-writing or removing the additions you added. Just letting you know. -- Pa7 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, quantity? Can you give me a little example. Sounds interesting. BTW, that's what I meant by saying "as miniature as possible". And if you look through Jolie's page - There are very long reviews. If you see her page, to every mentioned performance, there is an attached review. so I don't know what you are skeptical about. BTW, every film from the filmo is mentioned. The less notable films just are not as detailed as the notable once.
I've selected the reviews with depth, and now you can see there are only noticed critics there. Like in case of Mission Kashmir, the critic is Deoshi. And there is more sense in saying "She plays the TV reporter as a veteran one...." rather than "She is good in her role". Every review is here after long searches and the ones here are the best. So I can repeat and tell you that I'm firm and my additions are here to stay (unless you bring better ones). -- Shahid • Talk2me 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since, the article is going for the big FA, I thought I'd present some things that concerned me:
I think the former should be moved to the In The Media section because I do not see what was humanitarian about her appearance on a tv show. She was encouraging troops, but I think that's about it.
I do not like the word typical in the latter sentence. I had a discussion about this with another user but it's still concerning me. I think the word should not be included because what defines as typical in Bollywood. It can mean rich girl, poor guy love each other etc etc etc. Also if this film was typical, then wasn't a film like Kal Ho Naa Ho typical. Two guys loved the same girl etc. It may be typical for someone who has watched Bollywood for years and years but not typical for someone who does not know anything about it or has not watched the films often. Also I've seen the film and it was not really the "two guys and girl love" story. Suggestions would be helpful. -- Pa7 13:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OH!! Im sorry if I'm annoying you with my declarations and long speeches!!! I know you hate me right now and we'll probably never come to an agreement on this but what can I do, I just presented a minor issue, which is turning into yet another disagreement between us!! I agree that the two guys and a girl is a typical story, but saying that would go against anyone who feels that's incorrect. The article has to be neutral in that it does not present a one-sided fact. What about the story of a rich girl, poor boy etc, some people may think that's typical. I don't think the story was the two guys and a girl. It was a guy trying to make another guy fall in love with the former's wife so he can get out of paying any money towards her, until he finds out she gave birth to his child and realises the mistake he made. -- Pa7 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm back. Come on you two whats the problem?
How about:
"Zinta then starred alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumarin Shirish Kunder's romantic musical "Jaan-E-Mann", which relates the story of two young men in America falling for the same girl.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm neutral on this - there are far more other articles on Indian cinema which require major attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Zinta then starred alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumarin Shirish Kunder's romantic musical "Jaan-E-Mann", which relates the common story of two young men in America falling for the same girl.
A suggestion takes it or leave it mis amigos
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦
"Talk"? 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
For instance Govinda needed an image which I just added Govinda (actor) and his filmography needs ordering - it is backwards. Things like I think require more attention. I think it would be a great idea to browse articles and make a Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema/Notebook and write down issues you think need solving whether they are minor or major on other articles and work through them gradually as part of the work group. Browsing articles on films and actors and articles related to Indian cinema and compliling a detailed to do list would be a good step forward. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Look I'm gonna tell it straight. You need to stop bickering and get on with things and all those articles which require attention. Sorry but what benefit does spending time on conflict give to the encycloepdia?. As great as you both are, what is the use in arguing over one word of a sentence when there are 615 million words to be concerned with?? The truth is -does it really matter whether that one word typical is there or not? Sorry but it just isn't important to the actual information in the article -now if it was some debate over the accuracy of an event in Preity's life or childhood or something I would symphathize but what you are arguing over isn't even directly related the lovely Miss Zinta. I can see both your views and I suggested what could be done. If you don't accept it - its not my problem. Keep up the good work the both of you but please try not to dwell on these things. Think about the bigger picture is the best advice I can give. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your right, its a shame that we crashed and burned like this, but I guess things change. I think we refer to each other as "user", right? Its not my fault, it's not your fault but we've just got two conflicting opinions?!? I would write my reply to you, but this "saintly Teresa" is gonna stop "annoying" you and carry on editing. What you have accused me of has shocked me, but when you have friends like Blofeld of SPECTRE, you realise you do not have to deal with this. So, Im gonna put this whole thing aside, like you said you do not consider me important enough, well vise-versa. I'll still be editing on this page, just thought you ought to know. Please don't think of me as a coward, who's just backed off. Also, you said I know what the reason is, but I won't tell that now as a factor of annoyance from my part. If you ever do divulge the reason, please let me know. So, back at yah for everything you wrote and best of luck. -- Pa7 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Sorry but I worked hard on it. If you see the pages of Tom Cruise etc, you'll see how much the controversies are expanded. As you also can see at the history of this talk page, User:Plumcouch suggested to expand controversies, while you supported her suggestions, Pa7.
Small... It was actually small because of the removal made by Pa7. In geberal, each controversy id a different one and has to be separated as per its case name.
Best regards, -- Shahid • Talk2me 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
No one said that if we add that to SN, we have to add that to MBM and JBJ. The most notable thing about this fact is that she is the first Indian actress to shoot a film entirely in Australia and she was part of a film that was shot entirely in Australia... What do you think?
As per The hero, look your last four edits, the first one of them shows how you removed this fact. Don't you pay attention to your own removals? -- Shahid • Talk2me 00:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
I meant for other stars and films? -- 82.45.48.116 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
If we say an actor is praised so there is nothing bad in stating our opinions. -- Shahid • Talk2me 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want it either. We are not in agreement because you apparently want the page to be as miniature as possible.
There is a difference between your dislike and my liking. You don't like it cause it's your opinion and you personally don't find favor in it. On the other hand, my opinions are based on many high class articles and are approved everywhere. I do want the page to reach to the highest possible level. Why not?
You know your opinions are important to me, cause you're the only one who works on this page except me, so what exactly do you have problems with, and what are you skeptical about? Shahid • Talk2me 16:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Um... you said I'm strongly firm and my additions are decisive and are here to stay. I might not agree with what's been added or written in the article so it's be forward to say that isn't it? Not just me but there might be other users that might not agree with what has been added so saying that there here to stay is a bit pushy, isn't it? Nevertheless, I will edit whenever I feel I need to and it may include re-writing or removing the additions you added. Just letting you know. -- Pa7 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, quantity? Can you give me a little example. Sounds interesting. BTW, that's what I meant by saying "as miniature as possible". And if you look through Jolie's page - There are very long reviews. If you see her page, to every mentioned performance, there is an attached review. so I don't know what you are skeptical about. BTW, every film from the filmo is mentioned. The less notable films just are not as detailed as the notable once.
I've selected the reviews with depth, and now you can see there are only noticed critics there. Like in case of Mission Kashmir, the critic is Deoshi. And there is more sense in saying "She plays the TV reporter as a veteran one...." rather than "She is good in her role". Every review is here after long searches and the ones here are the best. So I can repeat and tell you that I'm firm and my additions are here to stay (unless you bring better ones). -- Shahid • Talk2me 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since, the article is going for the big FA, I thought I'd present some things that concerned me:
I think the former should be moved to the In The Media section because I do not see what was humanitarian about her appearance on a tv show. She was encouraging troops, but I think that's about it.
I do not like the word typical in the latter sentence. I had a discussion about this with another user but it's still concerning me. I think the word should not be included because what defines as typical in Bollywood. It can mean rich girl, poor guy love each other etc etc etc. Also if this film was typical, then wasn't a film like Kal Ho Naa Ho typical. Two guys loved the same girl etc. It may be typical for someone who has watched Bollywood for years and years but not typical for someone who does not know anything about it or has not watched the films often. Also I've seen the film and it was not really the "two guys and girl love" story. Suggestions would be helpful. -- Pa7 13:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
OH!! Im sorry if I'm annoying you with my declarations and long speeches!!! I know you hate me right now and we'll probably never come to an agreement on this but what can I do, I just presented a minor issue, which is turning into yet another disagreement between us!! I agree that the two guys and a girl is a typical story, but saying that would go against anyone who feels that's incorrect. The article has to be neutral in that it does not present a one-sided fact. What about the story of a rich girl, poor boy etc, some people may think that's typical. I don't think the story was the two guys and a girl. It was a guy trying to make another guy fall in love with the former's wife so he can get out of paying any money towards her, until he finds out she gave birth to his child and realises the mistake he made. -- Pa7 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm back. Come on you two whats the problem?
How about:
"Zinta then starred alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumarin Shirish Kunder's romantic musical "Jaan-E-Mann", which relates the story of two young men in America falling for the same girl.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm neutral on this - there are far more other articles on Indian cinema which require major attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blofeld of SPECTRE ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Zinta then starred alongside Salman Khan and Akshay Kumarin Shirish Kunder's romantic musical "Jaan-E-Mann", which relates the common story of two young men in America falling for the same girl.
A suggestion takes it or leave it mis amigos
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦
"Talk"? 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
For instance Govinda needed an image which I just added Govinda (actor) and his filmography needs ordering - it is backwards. Things like I think require more attention. I think it would be a great idea to browse articles and make a Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cinema/Notebook and write down issues you think need solving whether they are minor or major on other articles and work through them gradually as part of the work group. Browsing articles on films and actors and articles related to Indian cinema and compliling a detailed to do list would be a good step forward. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Look I'm gonna tell it straight. You need to stop bickering and get on with things and all those articles which require attention. Sorry but what benefit does spending time on conflict give to the encycloepdia?. As great as you both are, what is the use in arguing over one word of a sentence when there are 615 million words to be concerned with?? The truth is -does it really matter whether that one word typical is there or not? Sorry but it just isn't important to the actual information in the article -now if it was some debate over the accuracy of an event in Preity's life or childhood or something I would symphathize but what you are arguing over isn't even directly related the lovely Miss Zinta. I can see both your views and I suggested what could be done. If you don't accept it - its not my problem. Keep up the good work the both of you but please try not to dwell on these things. Think about the bigger picture is the best advice I can give. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your right, its a shame that we crashed and burned like this, but I guess things change. I think we refer to each other as "user", right? Its not my fault, it's not your fault but we've just got two conflicting opinions?!? I would write my reply to you, but this "saintly Teresa" is gonna stop "annoying" you and carry on editing. What you have accused me of has shocked me, but when you have friends like Blofeld of SPECTRE, you realise you do not have to deal with this. So, Im gonna put this whole thing aside, like you said you do not consider me important enough, well vise-versa. I'll still be editing on this page, just thought you ought to know. Please don't think of me as a coward, who's just backed off. Also, you said I know what the reason is, but I won't tell that now as a factor of annoyance from my part. If you ever do divulge the reason, please let me know. So, back at yah for everything you wrote and best of luck. -- Pa7 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)