Contents

User talk:Vensatry: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:51, 24 June 2012

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Wiki Learning

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial on Wikipedia
• Editing a page
• How to develop good articles
• Creating your first article
• Article Wizard
• Manual of Style

Hi. Me and Animesh finished the editing for the article. Can you quickly check and let me know if you find something before we push it for PR? Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 19:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On15 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of international cricket centuries by Steve Waugh, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Steve Waugh was the first cricket player to score 150 runs in an innings against all Test-playing nations, a Guinness record? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of international cricket centuries by Steve Waugh. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hey..are you working on Filmfare Awards South? I observed that formatting is inconsistent. In some cases, sources are also not available. - Vivvt^Talk 13:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'll resume after a short break. Thanks! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me know, in case you need any assistance. - Vivvt^Talk 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're free can you do some copy-edits to the article. Also we should remove the "Supporting Actor/Actress" count from the superlatives. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I ll try cleaning up to some extent. Lets decide on the formatting before we move ahead. For superlatives, lets wait till we get the concrete consensus on WP:INCINE. Most of them are in favor but still. - Vivvt^Talk 13:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Hello. This is to inform you that there is a discussion going on at WT:INCINE regarding a specific user. The discussion can be viewed here. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is regarding the reversion you made on Mani Ratnam's page of the recurring collaborations table created by me. Similar tables exist on other film director's pages on Wikipedia as well (refer Wes Anderson, Martin Scorsese) and are deemed useful, which is why they have been created in the first place. To completely remove it without discussion is definitely harsh, if not unwarranted. To further push for the table, I'd like to state that the multiple collaborations (especially Art direction, Cinematography and Editing) help in figuring out the technical difference in the works of the director. Also, the 'poor formatting' is based on the template on the Wes Anderson page. Please let me know your views regarding the issue.

Anant Singh (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, did you ever discuss before adding it to the article. Care to provide an edit summary for your edits? Is the Wes Anderson Martin Scorsese article a good example? The table looks haphazard without scroll bars. It makes navigation difficult and breaks the structure of the page. Just because other articles have something there doesn't mean that we should have the same here. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the table with scroll bars. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I'd like to say that the table looks much better now and would like to thank you for it. As i said earlier, it provides an easy access to the array of technicians Mani Ratnam has worked with. But I'd also like to add that I strongly feel your behaviour borders on violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Here are my points.

(a) I didn't know one has to 'discuss' before contributing to Wikipedia. It wasn't as if I was vandalizing the page. Do you 'discuss' before making every single contribution to the site? Did you discuss the reversion you made? Wikipedia very clearly states the same point in its very first sentence (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus")

(b) If it was just the 'haphazard' look of the table, you could have done what you did now earlier, without reverting. To revert, is to shoot down any contribution made, thereby making way for either Revert warsorWP:Bite

(c) As I stated earlier, as far as 'discussion' is concerned, you could have started one as well before reverting, considering the amount of time spent on researching each and every IMDb title for the collaborations. This just leads to WP:Bite

(d) (Just to justify my actions in the first place) I haven't included similar tables for other Indian directors, yet, but the fact that Mani Ratnam has had a long history of working with a handful of people, thereby 'recurring' his 'collaborations', i considered it extremely useful to be placed here.

Anyhow, all's well that ends well. The new table's format would definitely come in handy in future for editors.

regards, Anant Singh (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]