My local time and date:20:57, July 22, 2014 IST(purge). Click here to refresh.
I make a few errors unknowingly and some due to technical glitches; thanks to my mobile browser. In such cases feel free to revert even before contacting me. If you're here because of an ongoing nomination at the FLC in which I'm involved, please don't place talkbacks as I'm watching it.
This user is currently experiencing significant real world stress that may affect his or her ability to work on Wikipedia. This user may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict. This user may also respond to talk page messages or e-mails more slowly than usual, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
If I 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.
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. -- Sriramspeak 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. -- Sriramspeak 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)
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)