User talk:Vensatry/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vensatry. 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Apologies
I am sorry for my actions on the FAC of Gemini. Because I am not a co-nominator of the article (despite wishing that I had been one), I thought I am allowed to post comments. Also, I edited much of the article not for the fun of it, but because Sriram was absent for one month, which would have failed the FAC again. But I promise they will never happen again on any other FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- While I see that GANs can only be reviewed by "anyone who has not contributed significantly to" the article, I believe FACs can be reviewed by anyone. Is there a rule prohibiting it? With that argument, an editor reviewing an FAC should have made not a single edit to the article. Pls. enlighten me. -- Sriram speak up 14:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: My bad! All editors can review FACs per the instructions given here. Further, it says "If you were a major contributor to the article, please note that when you support". I thought it was an unwritten rule for FACs that major contributors shouldn't support the nomination as in the case of GAN. @Sriram Vikram: Thanks for enlightening this fogey! Best wishes for the nomination. —Vensatry (ping) 16:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Happens. And, thanks for your wishes. Btw, Krimuk90 pointed out that the prose requires more polishing and I find myself nodding in acceptance. Since you were successful in your first attempt with FAC, can you spare a little time and help me better the prose quality? I ain't so fluent in English and my vocabulary is rather limited. So, pls. consider my request. Thanks. -- Sriram speak up 13:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the request, but I should admit that I'm not really comfortable working on film articles. Even during the Trichy FAC there were some minor objections about the quality of prose not being "professional". Luckily I got an editor who did a great job. Let's hope for the best! —Vensatry (ping) 18:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Will asking a GOCE member personally get the job done? Because listing it at the GOCE may force us to wait longer. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- You may have to ask this to the "editor in your mind". Again, even if they agree it's not a guarantee that the prose will be up to FAC standards. —Vensatry (ping) 16:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Will asking a GOCE member personally get the job done? Because listing it at the GOCE may force us to wait longer. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the request, but I should admit that I'm not really comfortable working on film articles. Even during the Trichy FAC there were some minor objections about the quality of prose not being "professional". Luckily I got an editor who did a great job. Let's hope for the best! —Vensatry (ping) 18:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Happens. And, thanks for your wishes. Btw, Krimuk90 pointed out that the prose requires more polishing and I find myself nodding in acceptance. Since you were successful in your first attempt with FAC, can you spare a little time and help me better the prose quality? I ain't so fluent in English and my vocabulary is rather limited. So, pls. consider my request. Thanks. -- Sriram speak up 13:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Kailash29792: My bad! All editors can review FACs per the instructions given here. Further, it says "If you were a major contributor to the article, please note that when you support". I thought it was an unwritten rule for FACs that major contributors shouldn't support the nomination as in the case of GAN. @Sriram Vikram: Thanks for enlightening this fogey! Best wishes for the nomination. —Vensatry (ping) 16:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:VA/E
You may be interested to know that we did end up adding Rajinikanth to the list of vital articles. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ha, the style samrat is back! Thanks for letting me know about it :) —Vensatry (ping) 14:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you might want to sort out the neutrality issue in the reception, it seems nobody else is going to. I'll pass it once it's sorted, it really doesn't need much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Regret to say that I'm personally disinterested in the article for obvious reasons. —Vensatry (ping) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 July 2014
- Special report: Wikimania 2014—what will it cost?
- Wikimedia in education: Exploring the United States and Canada with LiAnna Davis
- Featured content: Three cheers for featured pictures!
- News and notes: Echoes of the past haunt new conflict over tech initiative
- Traffic report: World Cup, Tim Howard rule the week
Commons
Hey! I recently uploaded an image of Vikram from Bollywood Hungama to commons and have used it in Vikram filmography. Can you review the image in commons? -- Sriram speak up 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- A valid one! Be sure to check the URL each time when you upload an image from that site. Someone will review it soon —Vensatry (ping) 16:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 July 2014
- Special report: $10 million lawsuit against Wikipedia editors withdrawn, but plaintiff intends to refile
- Traffic report: World Cup dominates for another week
- Wikimedia in education: Serbia takes the stage with Filip Maljkovic
- Featured content: The Island with the Golden Gun