User talk:Vensatry/Archive 22

DYK for Apurba Kishore Bir
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What did I just do?
Hey mate! I just did something, and I'm not sure if what I did was right and if I have enough privileges to do such things. I'm not a patroller. Is it okay? And I have seen many users have a user subpage named 'username/CSDlog'. Am I supposed to keep a log of articles I nominate for CSD? Pls, enlighten me. -- Sriram speak up  03:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seemed to have tagged the article for speedy deletion. I don't think it meets the criteria, as she seems to be a notable individual. You can keep a log of articles which you tag for deletion (both PROD and CSD) by turning them on in WP:TWPREFS. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 04:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is run of a mill. Isn't it? -- Sriram speak up  05:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. My bad. Since the deletion is being contested, should I just let it stay or can I remove the tag? -- Sriram speak up  05:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot find anybody contesting the deletion. Be careful while tagging articles for speedy in future, as it might result in a lot of heated-arguments. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 06:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I better stay away from them. -- Sriram  speak up  06:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude! I just added those refs so that contents from them can be used to expand the article. -- Sriram speak up  07:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed em because they did not have anything to say about her apart from the fact that she was the general secretary of AIDWA. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 07:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? OH!! -- Sriram speak up  07:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think so &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 07:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for making me a better editor today. -- Sriram  speak up  07:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping) 08:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

GA clarification
Hey bro! Hoping to take an article to GA, I'm currently working on it, albeit in my PC's Notepad!! But, the instruction for nominating given here states that, nominators who aren't significant contributors should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Well, this article's 'significant contributor', who also happens to be its creator, isn't active anymore. Is 'significant contributor' decided based on no. of edits? If so, what should I do? I was thinking of improving it to some level before making the changes in wiki. Should I make the changes in multiple stages to increase edit count? -- Sriram speak up  13:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In most cases it refers to people who have made the most number of edits. You may drop a note on the principal contributors' talk pages to see if they're interested. Making changes just for the sake of increasing your edit count isn't a great idea. See how this single edit changed the quality of the article. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 16:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, the principal contributor isn't active. -- Sriram speak up  17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is he the only principal contributor? creators may not necessarily be so. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 17:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, FYI, the article in question is Kaadhalikka Neramillai. Take a look. The two 'top' contributors seems to be retired. -- Sriram speak up  17:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty close. But I'm holding back making 'that' edit for this reason. -- Sriram speak up  17:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it just a formality? Can I just leave a message in their talk page and go on, nominating for GAN? -- Sriram speak up  17:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a great movie and it's going to be a challenging one! You may start working on the article preferably in your sandbox and nominate it when ready. ATB! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 17:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dude! I'm sorry but that doesn't help. -- Sriram speak up  17:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I was saying earlier, top contributors need not be the ones who have made the maximum number of edits. In some cases, even people with 100+ edits may have zero actual input to the article as they would be constantly reverting vandalism. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandbox is a great tool when compared to PC notepad. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what do you suggest? -- Sriram speak up  18:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah! But since the article already exists, I can't move it to main space. -- Sriram speak up  18:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You could work either way. But make sure that your edits make vast improvement content-wise. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it will. So, can I just make a single edit? -- Sriram speak up  18:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That'll do! Are you done with the stuff? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty close. Still a few things to do. Can you help? -- Sriram speak up  18:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Huh.. where can I start? I have two sets of reviews. One by film personalities and one by journalists. Under what title can I group them? Does 'contemporary reviews' sound good for film personalities treating them as contemporaries? And 'reflective reviews' for journalists'? -- Sriram speak up  18:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I say put "contemporary reviews" for those that came in 1964, and "reflective" for reviews over time. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But I got only one review that came in 1964!! -- Sriram speak up  18:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, ! I wanted to ask you. this says, the book has info about the film. Can you scan those relevant and upload to your photobucket gallery? -- Sriram speak up  18:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work thus far. However, I feel the introduction part about Sridhar and Gopu are unnecessary. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 06:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to keepit down to 3-4 sentences but could not. I could not abruptly start that he spend his evenings driving around with someone. -- Sriram speak up  06:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can by simply saying that Gopu was Sridhar's childhood friend or something like schoolmate. It shouldn't deviate from the topic and read like Sridhar's biography. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 06:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? -- Sriram speak up  07:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Kalidas (film)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * archive -- Sriram speak up  13:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anjuli Shukla
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * archive -- Sriram speak up  13:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Two things
I have opened the Bhakta Prahlada matter over here as u suggested. As for what Arjann said, he was true in some cases: there aren't many editors active in keeping Tamil film articles up to date and he was among the few. The only two things of his I did not like were: his lack of writing skills and his attacking of you. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not our problem Kailash! Editors keep coming and going, after all they edit out of their own interest. If you talk about the editor in question, I cannot be held responsible for his exit in any way. So you should stop feeding him; he is no diva least for me. When I was a newbie, there were editors like Eelamstylez77, Johannes003 and a few more who were doing a very good job updating Tamil cinema articles. They are not highly active anymore. We should encourage only constructive and good-faith editors! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks :) Are you talking about Padmalakshmi? He has a notoriety for his POV pushing and talk page attack edits. It was pretty easy for me to nail out! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 17:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted tables on Balu Mahendra's filmography
Whats your rationale in this revert? Tables seemed good. In the present bulletted/column format, couple of films are chronologically disordered. Also being in 3 columns, regardless of year mentioned, it may tend to confuse an ordinary reader to read either in horizontal way or vertical way. Hence the format was changed. See WP:FILMOGRAPHY --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support ) 16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since he made films predominantly in Tamil and we have a separate section for  Notes Awards, I see no obvious benefit in having a table. And how does it confuse the readers when we include the year? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Fred Trueman/archive1
Hi there. Any further thoughts? Thanks for your help thus far. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Anushka Shetty
If ever you are adding content to Anushka Shetty, you can find sources from here. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's just a simple newspaper search. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 15:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

KNI
Hey! I got a request to make. If possible, can you take a look at Kadhalikka Neramillai and make a rough copy-edit before the actual c/e takes place? I also feel that the article doesn't read good at certain places and may need rephrasing. There may also be some contents that might not fit in here (like you pointed out earlier about Sridhar's childhood which I have addressed to the best I can). Particularly the second para under 'Filming'. It just feels out of place. I don't know if it can be rewritten in some other way. If and when you are free, spare some time. Thanks. -- Sriram speak up  06:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sunday afternoon don't feel like editing WP. I'll have a look at it tomorrow :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No probs bro! Its only a request. You even have the liberty to deny it. -- Sriram  speak up  12:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been doing a few edits myself to reduce your work. -- Sriram speak up  05:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made some minor changes. The prose looks okay for a GA, but you need to avoid the usage of slang as they are non-encyclopedic. Otherwise, everything looks fine! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 14:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks man! -- Sriram speak up  16:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A few images and screenshots here -- Sriram speak up  06:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For what? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 07:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think he means that if you are going to upload any new images to KNI (as you are more experienced in the art of adding images and getting permission to use them), then he found some. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah! -- Sriram speak up  10:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sriram, the site says "Photos are copyrighted by their owners". Flickr has no images of the location. Panoramio has quite a few images of the dam, but I don't think it has the image that you are in need of. It's upto you to request the uploader to release the images under a free license. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Karma
Something I found for you. Regards. -- Sriram speak up  15:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And credits to titodutta for this -- Sriram speak up  15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interestingly, a lot of sources available for this film online! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, in the article, the Priya Jaikumar reference is repeated. -- Sriram speak up  16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha thanks :) &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 17:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Neenga Nalla Irukkanum
Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Captured screenshot &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 04:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How did u insert the archive.is link here? I thought that site is blacklisted on Wiki. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? I did not get any warning before saving the page. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 04:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Karma (1933 film)
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Captured screenshot &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

V. K. Murthy
Hey! Think you can take this to In the news (RD)? -- Sriram speak up  15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid! though he is highly notable, the article needs a lot of improvement. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 01:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. Well, we can't predicts deaths and start working in advance, can we? -- Sriram speak up  02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True. But articles appearing in main page (for whatever reason may be) should be well-written. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 02:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Its not easy to improve a biographical article in a short span. By the time we are done with it, the death will no longer be 'recent'. So, we will just let this pass. -- Sriram speak up  02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It need not be comprehensive. But "well-sourced" and decent prose are a must! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it has a 'Trivia section! And both Trivia and Awards are completely unsourced. -- Sriram speak up  03:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the whole article is badly sourced. -- Sriram speak up  03:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You may improve the article if you want. I'll do some minor sourcing work. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure -- Sriram speak up  03:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I think actually with a bit of work it could pass FA. I can spot a few sourcing and prose issues, not to mention the sub title system, but I think with a bit of effort we could get it up to FA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar! Though I must deny full credit for the article. It was who developed the article from scratch. And yes, it's a potential candidate. &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping) 14:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm currently working on Devika Rani. She is a legendary actress who may not be popular with the present generation like the Rais, Kapoors, Chopras, et al. Though I was a little hesitant when I first edited the article, now I'm pretty sure that it can be taken to GAN. Any thoughts? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you could get it up to GA status but in looking it might need quite a lot of work!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Vensa, whatever happened of your plan to take Rajinikanth to FA status? I know the number of GA articles in Indian cinema is coming up well, with at least one film in each decade (except the 80's) now at GA status, and several biographies too. Though there are also a few FA articles in Bollywood, Kollywood seems to have none (Gemini 2002 and Ilaiyaraaja failed their FAC's). So I think that Kollywood is in dire need of at least one FA for the moment. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm currently working on it! let's see how it goes. I cannot give any guarantee for Rajinikanth, unless I get a biography on him. To be very frank, it needs a lot of work. To take an actor's biography who has over 150 films to his acting credit is a hard task. We don't have any model FAs on other Indian actors of his era. Even the "Khans" who came out much later don't have GAs. All that we have is FAs of some new-born Bollywood "beauties" who are just about 30-50 films old. One thing we should be proud is that Kollywood runs behind Bollywood in WP too. We don't have many GAs in other regional films. Considering that, what we have now is a big achievement! &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Kailash, I'm not to be called "Vensa". Even Vensatry is not my real-life name. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 15:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Either of you can join WMUK and request books through a grant here if you're interested. I'm told you don't have to be British to join and apply for a grant. They can send the books like to your address, anything you want, although you have to put in a formal request and it costs £5 for join WMUK. Obviously you'd have to use them to improve articles though and you have to send them back once used. I currently have a few books, including one on Meryl Streep and Kubrick's films which I'll be using in coming weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds interesting! Apart from the registration fee, we don't have to pay for the books right? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course not! That's why it's a request for a grant! You can request books up to £250.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Gulzar for Dadasaheb Phalke Award
Hi, I have nominated Gulzar for front page ITN section and on ITN/C people supported it but there are urgent need of improvements to make it appear  on front page. Issues are discussed on ITN/C, please help. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , the article needs a fair amount of work. Sorry to say but I'm terribly busy at the moment with other commitments. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for quick reply. I am working on it. If you know someone who can help than please ping him for me. Regards -Nizil (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you have already left a message on WT:ICTF. Interested will come forward. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 05:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

En Iniya Ponnilave
I believe the film director ( in title ) is not Balu mahendra, but someone like Hareendran or Raveendran. It was a Balu film, but was abandonded. Later it was completed. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a Balu Mahendra film. Check out this video. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 17:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I too checked the film in youtube; the title card shows Balu Mahendra only. Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my question is whether the film got a theatrical release? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 18:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum
I have expanded the article in the last three days. Is the expansion fivefold and does it quality for DYKrules? Can you help me with a DYK nom? -- Sriram speak up  11:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good job! The article is just 31 chars short of a five-fold expansion; not a problem at all. Do you want me to nominate the article on your behalf? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Then when will I learn? I'll try it this time. Can you suggest a hook? -- Sriram speak up  11:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not fully read the article. You have to decide on that! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * May be try something like "Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum was India's first studio-backed short film made exclusively for the Internet". &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is what I thought. The reason why I asked you for the hook was because my first DYK of CIFF was disastrous. The views were too few. And the icing on the cake: the day it appeared on Main Page, the great Amitabh Bachchan, who was mentioned in the hook, had the least no. of views in that month!! -- Sriram speak up  11:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What to do. We cannot have interesting hooks all the time. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, atleast BigB could have grabbed a few eyeballs. Never mind. I have made the nom. Can you take a look and tell if everything is fine? -- Sriram speak up  11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I requested you to check if I have made any mistakes while nominating. -- Sriram speak up  13:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Spot on! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I initially forgot to bold the title! -- Sriram speak up  13:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, can you review the DYK? -- Sriram speak up  14:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't take up reviews when I don't have anything to nominate. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 14:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! QPQ right? Hmmm. okay. Thanks anyway. -- Sriram speak up  14:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly! &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 15:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Eye of the Serpant
The Eye of The Serpant by Theodore Baskaran was first published in 1996, whereas in Balu Mahendra, you have written 2013. Are we Wikipedians allowed to use the years of re-editions of books as references? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the tool which I use, messes up citations many a times. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 13:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you have nominated Balu Mahendra for GA status. All the best, and may the force be with you. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was trying to model the article based on this one. Let's see how it goes. &mdash; Vensatry  (Ping) 13:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My wishes too. Great job with both Devika Rani and Balu Mahendra. You are starting to inspire me a lot!! -- Sriram  speak up  13:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, "Are we Wikipedians allowed to use the years of re-editions of books as references", I don't understand your question here. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 13:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The question was, when the book was originally released in 1996, why use the year of the re-edition? Is The Eye of the Serpant's 2013 edition so different? I normally use the re-edition's year only when there is something new in that which the original lacks. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Google messes up a few citations. I'll correct it. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 15:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)