User talk:Fæ/2012/F

Wikipedians at the June 2011 British Library English and Drama editathon. Part of the programme of events supported by Wikimedia UK.

Photo of "Bunny eating an Astronaut" by Bill Reid, a tribute to Tipu's Tiger which was kindly released on a free license after my email request.

"The Widow" a 19th century print held by Boston Public Library. One of my batch uploads, hundreds more early kitsch images at Commons:Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library.

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Are you the administrator of the above artical? If you are then do you know this artical is a disgrace on wikipedia and on anyone's who is responsible for it? It gives absolutely no information. I havent see a worse managed artical on wikipedia.. how long do you think it will take for this one to become a featured artical? You are quick to edit any comments but cant you guys just decide a good solution for this artical (delete, complete, anything but the horrible state it is in) and apply it? I am sorry to be rude but someone with authority does need to take some action sooner or later. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, administrators do not have articles. I agree it is not a good article, please read the background on the article talk page for the reasons why it is so oddly formatted. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

why not just show top 1 in every table? what information does 3rd, 6th and 10th give to you? are they supposed to help us interpolate the amount and names of the movies in between? Your backgrounds on the talk page are not an excuse good enough for the horrible result, if you are one of the administrators you are responsible. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bystander effect, the more administrators there are, the less likely anyone of them will take a meaningful action.. 98.234.234.184 (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the consensus on a better solution, please use the article talk page. There is no action here for an administrator to take, this was a consensus on how to respond to the WMF legal advice. You make it sound as if there were a crowd of admins watching a car crash, take some time to read through the discussions and the archive before condemning everyone in sight. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Hi Fæ. Would you please semi-protect this article again? You've just reverted one IP, and there'll be hundreds more in the coming days. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hi, I'll keep an eye on it. I'm slightly cautious about slapping on protection with a mainly preventative rationale, however I think we know it will not take much for protection to be needed again. If it were a repeated copyvio issue, then immediate protection may well be the right thing to do. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fæ. BTW, most of the information presented in the article has been made up-to-date. I guess we can just keep reverting vandals. Scieberking (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Fæ. Hope you're doing great. What seems to be the problem with "biggest opening day"? It's following the same ole 1,3,6,10 format. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check the last version, you can see it actually duplicates a full list of top 10. I note the other tables include complete lists but have assumed that they are not directly lifted from BOI straight off the same web page but a result of new analysis. --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was James SLMN's "hard work". Now that I've reverted those edits, I think it is safe to remove the copyvio tag. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

List of highest grossing Indian films

Someone has created an article called List of highest grossing Indian films. It uses some of the same sources as List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, yet has some un-sourced and badly-sourced stuff and a full 1-5 listing. I am not sure how to tag it. Could you help? BollyJeff || talk 12:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources did not match the figures anyway, so purged them and prodded the article. If the PROD get deleted it may have to go to AFD, again. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No prob's for reverting. Thanks for your kind info. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

MonmouthpediA

Hi Fae

Thanks for your advice, I've removed the MonmouthpediA section from Monmouth.

All the best Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

Do you think it is the right place to put a link to MonmouthpediA under the in development section for Europe? http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Projects_%26_Events

Also do you know anyone who knows about copyright? I have a lot of photos that are from around 1920, also a lot that the person who took them has died, not sure if I can just put them on commons? Also someone has volunteered to give a lot of his copyrighted text and images to MonmouthpediA, don't know how he can release the copyright on it.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Me, probably. If the person taking photographs died less than 70 years ago, you will need to confirm the copyright of their estate and then email some evidence in to OTRS via permissions-commonswikimedia.org, if more than 70 years ago then commons:template:PD-old-70 applies (for the UK, some variations apply in other countries or sometimes it can depend on the nature of the photo such as photographs of 2D works of art); it is actually far more straightforward if the photographer is unknown. Anyone can donate text by providing a release statement to permissions-enwikimedia.org, the text then has a verification number to reference. A release boiler-plate for emails is at WP:CONSENT. --Fæ (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

Please help me save the pages Robotics Design and ANAT technology. I am being assuleted by people that make accusations and votes but present no worthy evidence. Democracy in this case is that of a racoon and a fox voting to eat a squirrel, and this is unlawful, unfair, unreasonable, and I need help. Thanks.Canadiansteve (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please be aware of WP:CANVASS. You seem to have notified plenty of experienced folks already. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Terminology with Bears

Hello, Fæ. You have new messages at Talk:Bear_(gay_culture)#Proposal_to_delete_unsourced_terms.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adding Image Tags/Attributes

So, how would I go about properly adding copyright/source information to my photos? Is it all after the fact or is it a matter of knowing a format for the comments property? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielryan2012 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be better for you to consider why adding "Big ayuss tittehs!" to articles is not acceptable before adding license claims to doubtful images. See Vandalism. --Fæ (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Foreign Relations

Instead of deleting the entry I was hoping you or another admin could have worked with me on improving it. My entry didn't stray too far from others like Foreign Policy Journal for example. Johnllyman (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You were helped, repeatedly. There have been 3 deletion discussions and several experienced editors looked carefully at sources presented and would have searched for alternatives. The website you intend to promote does not have sufficient evidence in independent quality sources to address the notability criteria. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Fæ,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet article

Hi Fae,

As per your recent protection and posts on the above article, you rightly note the lack of discussion between editors. That's because the article has been the persistent target of a very small number of users attempting to edit the article to their tiny minority perspective (that Tammet is a liar, cheat, fraud, etc...) in contravention of hundreds of reliable published secondary sources - including several published peer-reviewed scientific papers - and Wikipedia's own rules regarding the editing of living persons biography articles.

A consensus was painfully reached several months back - incorporating the perspective of a journalist (and memory tricks enthusiast), Joshua Foer, who has written a book chapter advancing his own views on Tammet. Several long-time Wikipedia editors, including one of the researchers who met and studied Tammet (Ed Hubbard), contributed at length to the discussion.

Nothing would seem to have changed since the book's publication to alter that consensus. The one or two individuals attempting to change the article are wanting to cherry-pick quotes/anecdotes from the book (only the ones that suit their viewpoint of course) because they argue the current article lacks 'balance'.

It's pretty tough to discuss with individuals who basically believe Tammet is a liar, cheat, fraud and that there's some huge media and scientist conspiracy to silence them. I don't blame other editors for keeping well clear.

I'm pretty sure the edits being proposed (or rather, persistently and obsessively placed into the body of the article without any discussion or regard to existing consensus between editors) would come under Wikipedia's rules concerning fringe theories, original research, and 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, in this particular case it is probably quite handy for me to stay uninvolved. I have not researched into the sources but if this is a blatant BLP issue you may find WP:BLPN a rather useful source of help for someone to take a look at the sources and nature of cherry picking going on. As mentioned on the talk page, there are a number of Dispute resolution processes that may help resolve this issue and when the article gets unprotected I strongly suggest you stick to the 'higher ground' and avoid reverting in any way that may be interpreted as edit warring. If you can firmly establish a consensus this will make any dubious changes in the future much easier to handle correctly. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fae,

As mentioned above, a consensus was already firmly established among editors including several long-time Wikipedians and a researcher who was directly involved in the various scientific tests Tammet underwent. The users are not bringing anything new to the discussion and are basically attempting to force their fringe theory views onto the article. What should be done in such an instance? Oughtprice99 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I did have a quick look through the talk archive, is there a particular part of the discussions you could point to as the existing consensus? Cheers --Fæ (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

Yes, start from the top of the page - you'll see from its length that there was quite a lot of discussion about Foer's book and its claims/contents already. Specifically, read the input of long-time Wikipedians off2riorob, Enchanter, and EdHubbard (the researcher who was one of those to test Tammet in person). Enchanter's comment from 9 June 2011 gives a good flavor of the consensus. Basically, Foer's book was considered borderline for reliability/notability and consensus finally reached about a sentence briefly incorporating the journalist's perspective of Tammet.

The user now aggressively editing the article is trying to alter it by including certain primary sources cited in Foer's book (as did user Bill121212 at the time). The main primary source in question appears to be a decade-old defunct webpage that Foer claims was Tammet's former website. But no other secondary source refers to this site, and its author is simply assumed rather than confirmed (for example there's no copyright notice, and Tammet's name is misspelled throughout).

As I said above, nothing has changed since book publication to alter the existing consensus.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I could find time to take a proper read through at some point tomorrow and then comment as a third party, however once I am involved I would no longer take any actions as an administrator. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to run late on this, distracted by chapter affairs. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae. Believe first title in talk page re-edited recently. Was titled 'disputed claims'. Opening lines recently added and user's whole original posting removed. Please check.188.29.61.207 (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Charlie Straight

Hello Fæ. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charlie Straight, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the award bit was added to the page after the A7 and of course changes the scenario. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

GLAM & Cambridge

Hi, I'm interested in seeing if I can help anything glam-ish happen in Cambridge. I know some librarians, archivists, historians etc. at the university, and would be happy to approach them with ideas. Charles Matthews suggested I talk to you. I'd love to get a sense of the sort of initiatives that have worked elsewhere, and what's made them work. Dsp13 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, following up by email. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

High Speed Pursuit Syndrome

Thanks for your note regarding High Speed Pursuit Syndrome. I don't doubt that you're right about it failing to meet speedy deletion criteria. As such, I've proposed it for unspeedy deletion - if the author (or anyone else) wants to contest it, I'll probably take it to AfD. Cheers. TheMadBaron (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

on Tammet discussion page

see this.This is the original text, to which that IP erroneously edited. You reverted an editing that corrected the error. You edited based on misunderstanding.--121.119.167.149 (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the connection between the diff you have provided of an entire section of the talk page being moved by a bot into the archive to the change you have made here introducing a paragraph of text and changing the title of a section. --Fæ (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae. Original Talk Page started with 'Disputed Claims' on 13 April 2011. Some user has removed the whole section. Please restore using archive. Thanks.188.29.9.177 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to get time to have a proper look this week as I am committed to some job interviews. If you would like an earlier response, please try using {{admin-help}} on your user talk page with a description of what to check. --Fæ (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

whole section is here. And you erroneously deleted the first paragraph of another section, which I already restored.--211.5.10.58 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mr IP188...., I hope you already found the archived section. By the way I am concerned about 124.150.32.120's neglect of the rules...--211.5.13.169 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Taro Aizu (again)

Dear Fæ, you provided administrative assistance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taro Aizu (2nd nomination), and so I'm boldly requesting you assist again, now that the article has been recreated once more, this time with a macron on the O, at Tarō Aizu. I don't know what the most appropriate action is (speedy? salting?) and that's why I'm looking for help from someone with greater experience (you).

There is no claim of notability in the article. The two works mentioned are self-published at Lulu.com, and the one reference cited, to inclusion in a journal, doesn't support the claim. The new article seems fairly identical to the deleted one, as far as I can recall. Thanks for any assistance. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have put this up for speedy as a repost. Checking the last deleted version from some months ago, the deleted version was actually significantly better than the recreation so there seems little reason to go to a third deletion discussion. However as several months have past, this is not a persistent recreation, or even blatant spamming, so I have opted for not deleting it on sight or salting for the moment though probably if recreated in haste then salting would be the way to go. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose the same should be done for this redirect: Taro Aizu. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fæ (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TREC notability

Hi Fæ, I'm hoping to get your feedback on the Text Retrieval Conference article -- see question in talk page jrf (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, may take a while, rather busy for the next week or so. --Fæ (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cripes, busy into next week. It's on my list. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Bias on Wikipedia

You should be aware of impending consequences as a result of deleting/hiding my comments on the Discussion Page of the Wikipedia entry on Evan Davis, and then blocking me from further edits. I am currently writing a piece for a national paper (to be published shortly) on the politics of Wikipedia editing, and how in particular certain political biases now operate. Although compiling instances of this in terms of anecdotal (indirect) evidence has not been difficult, obtaining primary examples (directly affecting me) has proved rather more elusive. Until now, that is, since you have inadvertently provided me with just the kind of illustration hitherto lacking of political bias on Wikipedia. It is my intention not just to name you and others in the forthcoming article, but also to detail the bias evident in the very language used to dismiss someone holding a different political viewpoint, then to delete/hide the latter, and finally to block its expression. Such bias is clear from the way deleting/blocking a different political viewpoint is dismissed as – among other things – “a rant”, “off-topic”, “stop playing silly games” and “delete rubbish”. This despite the fact that the case for the inclusion of a political context to Evan Davis’s career in the media, made by me and another contributor to the Discussion Page, went unanswered by you, notwithstanding its obvious relevance to an understanding of his current media prominence. By contrast, deliberations about Evan Davis’s sexuality (intrinsically more offensive to the subject of the Wikipedia article), an aspect which as I pointed out concerned no one but him, were left intact on the same Discussion Page. In short, a laissez faire approach which underlines the point I’m making: that your objections were to comment about Evan Davis’s politics, not his sexuality. I had intended to complain about your role in all this to Wikipedia, but this won’t now be necessary. When my article appears, I am confident that you will be called upon by the most senior people in the Wikipedia hierarchy to account for your actions in this episode. 14 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.226.2 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to account for my actions and their reasoning in line with our well established policies. Please ensure that the right comment is attributed to the right editor (I certainly did not accuse anyone of silly games). Best of luck with your newspaper article, I look forward to reading it. Should you want an interview please do get in touch using the "E-mail this user" you can find in the tool-bar on the left of your screen.

For any casual on-looker, you can find the comments being referred to at diff, as can be seen, I rather mildly pointed to policy and collapsed the comments rather than deleting them as others had chosen to do up to that point. Due to edit warring on the Evan Davis talk page, the IP account involved was then blocked for 72 hours (by a different administrator). At the time of writing these forum-like non-neutral comments are still on the page, just collapsed as failures of TALKNO. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Real Students of Telecom

I first want to thank you for the guidelines that you have sent. I also noticed that you have marked my article for deletion and I feel that it was unjust. The article was just posted yesterday and there is more information that has to be added. The article is a relevant topic that did not have a chance for people to read and discuss. It is very informative and should not be notified for deletion until all the information is posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FashionSoroity (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The real students of telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If you can add some independent reliable sources showing notability, then there will be no problem in keeping the article. The deletion discussion normally runs for seven days, so there is plenty of time to improve the article. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A favour

Could you take a look at The Three Ravens? There's a long drawn out dispute about an image which I and others consider inappropriate (and possibly copyright). I called for a consensus on the talk page, and only the perpetrator of the image (I think - unsigned post) supported it. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look this over (and possibly check the book if you have a chance - I can't see anyone just drawing this thing to post it here...). Thanks. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm tied up with a workshop today and then committed to a preparing for a presentation on Monday (both Wikimedia related, so that's my Wiki-time eaten up). It may be better to approach another admin unless this can wait for a week or two. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Things are getting interesting - the image in question has been removed by someone and the originator hasn't tried to put it back. When you get a moment will do. It's been going on for months and months, anyway. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood films

I have two concerns regarding the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films.

First, I cannot understand why you removed coloring. Your argument about films being replayed endlessly is, sorry to say, senseless as the same applies for Hollywood films (actually, more) and yet you have not removed coloring for that. I would like to know why you are so vocal about removing everything from a Bollywood-related list, but do nothing regarding a Hollywood-related list.

Second, I would like to know whether you have obtained permission from Box Office India to utilize their figures. The list has now come back to a 1 to 10 format, so i was wondering.

I sincerely hope you can satisfactorily answer my queries. AnkitBhatt^WDF 07:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the same rationale should apply to other articles, but that is not a good reason to ignore this article and as pointed out, the guidance of WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color is clear enough.

As for the list, BOI have not given permission and so the advice at CIL still applies. The user that re-added the copyright violation has been warned previously and is now blocked. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I insist on knowing exactly why you call coloring in the Bollywood list unnecessary, and why you find comparison with a Hollywood list "not a good reason". In my frank opinion, your answer looks more like a rather weak attempt at covering up your personal intentions, and you have most certainly not answered my query satisfactorily. I shall be opening up a new discussion regarding this mater later, unless you explain yourself in the clearest and most precise terms. AnkitBhatt^WDF 09:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not getting the point but I think my answers are sufficient. I suggest you either create a local consensus for the article on how to highlight films still being shown in cinemas, or carefully consider what MOS and RECENT say on the topic. If you suspect me of unhelpful "personal intentions" then I suggest you explain what those are or follow Dispute resolution if you would think that would expose me in some way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll say it point blank. I think that you are ready to preserve Hollywood-based film articles in their form, but purposely want to make the Bollywood-related articles less detailed simply so that Bollywood-related articles will always be below Hollywood. Your repeatedly unsatisfactory replies tends to prove my point about your tilt towards Hollywood. I hope I have made myself clear. I am going to bring back coloring for currently-running films, since I can clearly see that their is no fair judgement on your part regarding this issue. And repeatedly bringing up MOS and RECENT just shows your ignorance. Those two rules apply as much for Hollywood films as for any other language films. In case you disagree, this matter will be taken up in the talk page of the List, not here. perhaps then we can get a better idea of where everybody stands. AnkitBhatt^WDF 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaching a local consensus is as I advised. Please remember that I am not responsible for Hollywood related film articles or Bollywood related film articles, the reason that OSE is the consensus view, is so that we can make changes without lots of editors vetoing all change with the argument that everything else must be fixed first. Your assumptions about my motivation are a failure to assume good faith, particularly in consideration of the fact that a local consensus on this matter already exists in addition to the standard MOS guideline, see Talk:List of highest-grossing Bollywood films#Blue colouring - proposal to remove from the article. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You are very conveniently side-stepping the fact that MOS is applicable for Hollywood film lists/ If you are so persistent about this issue, I will remove coloring from the List of highest-grossing films. But no, you will revert it back so as to "achieve consensus", isn't it? Please stick to one rule. Do not use the same rule in one place and disregard it elsewhere. And you may tag me as a vandal but my argument is just and certainly much better than yours. We shall now discuss in the talk page. And please, do not talk to me about matters of good faith. I can as easily bring up matters of neutrality. It is best not to go to that area. Regards, AnkitBhatt^WDF 13:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unclear as to why you think I am side-stepping anything. MOS applies everywhere, if you wish to make some edits to List of highest-grossing films to make it compliant, then that would probably be a good idea. I can not remember making any substantial edits on that article and I can see no local consensus to deviate from MOS. Again, I am not personally responsible for fixing every article on Wikipedia before making changes to your favourites. Fæ (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question of "favorites", as you so naively put it. This is about neutrality and the lack of a strong governing principle which applies everywhere. i have consulted with another editor, and he is not averse to putting back color. Using OSE is simply not a good enough excuse. And if you think that "local consensus" is all that is needed to obey or disobey a rule, I suggest you go back and carefully read through all the WP policies before speaking. And your so-called "consensus" involved how many editors? Two? Wow, that's one hell of a "consensus". And if you are still defiant and intent on making excuses, I simply cannot help. I am replacing coloring in the list. And please, do not attempt at reverting my harmless edit as a show of vandalism, as it simply isn't a case of vandal editing but a case of simply wrong thinking. Thank you, and good day. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the good practice of BOLD. Going against even a weakly supported local consensus and being aggressive in tone here does not help your argument. --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. You have been invited to share your views and provide consensus on the matter of coloring regarding the current-running films of List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Please go here to add your viewpoint. Cheers. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Were you previously User:Ash?

I ask because I remember this RFC on the user (Ash departed wikipedia under a cloud.) [1]. There seems to be rather strong evidence that you and Ash are one and the same. Maybe a redirect from the old account and a talk merge, as was done with Teahot, is in order?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)