This user has signed Jimbo's guestbook
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Vensatry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please leave a message; I'll reply here.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Rich Farmbrough 2 53 41 15 56 23:59, 4 July 2015 3 days, 8 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Learning

Andha Naal Rashomon effect[edit]

I think user Ganeshiyer3000 will never quit at removing statements that describe Andha Naal's similarities to Rashomon; he said in his edit summary that Andha Naal does "not" have the Rashomon effect: "Rashoman [sic] effect is when same event in narrated by people with contradicting interpretation. What ever story each suspect says [in Andha Naal] is true." Can you believe this?! Kailash29792 (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If he keeps doing the same even after so many explanations, report him. Vensatry (ping) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen both movies. Please enlighten me. How do you think rashoman effect come here. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

I have seen neither of them, but seen Virumaandi which employs the Rashomon effect. Since you seem like a genius in World cinema, why don't you enlighten me? Vensatry (ping) 08:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So you have not seen both then why are you even editing this movie. In Virumaandi it has rashoman effect. Same events are narrated by both Pasupathi and Kamal in contradicting way like the film Rashoman. But in film Andha Naal no one does that. I recommend you watch both movies and then edit this page. If you want more detailed answer I am willing to give.

I did my film studies in New york film academy in Mumbai. This is what i do for living, watching all world movies, comparing and writing theories about them is part of my education. Yes I am genius compared to you. I don't write about a film without even watching it. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

But I, having seen Andha Naal and read the basic premise of Rashomon, can conclude that they are similar. Even if the suspects in AN were telling only what they knew, each one's claims contradict those of the others. It's like the blind men and an elephant. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. In rashoman or Virumaandi a statement is different from what the next person says. Here it is a traditional "whodunit" murder mystery where a cop investigates and people tell what they know. Each person's statement leads to next suspect.

For example his house owner's statements leads to next suspect his brother. His brother explains the meaning of what he said and he then gives a new suspect his wife. After investigating his wife they get a new suspect his mistress, from her they track back to the house owner. But no one alters their story. No one narrated the same event altered like in Rashoman or Virumaandi, then no where Rashoman effect take place. I recommend you see Rashoman to understand meaning of its effect. I hope you have seen virumaandi. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Ganeshiyer3000, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. You cannot ask someone to refrain from editing a page. Further, I urge you to read WP:NOTTRUTH. I'm neither a genius nor a truth finder like you. No where in the article, it says the film employed Rashomon effect. It only says Balachander took inspiration from Kurosawa's Rashomon. Our definition says " ... contradictory interpretations of the same event by different people." Andha Naal follows the same pattern, yet nobody knows who the real culprit is (like most of the whodunit genres). Your point makes no sense. Vensatry (ping) 09:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the rashoman effect given in bottom of the article because it did not have those . Anyone can edit but you are ones that are not allowing anyone to edit. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

The Rashomon effect is contradictory interpretations of the same event by different people. " One same event is narrated 5 different people who alter the events. It mean only one of their statement will be true or all the statements may be wrong.

It is different from traditional whodunit Agatha Christie kind of mystery. You can not have Rashoman effect in every mystery film. Andha Naal does not even follow the Rashoman Pattern.

"Same event by different people is the term used" this does not happen in AN then how can you say it follows the same pattern. Here they don't even narrate the same event. No one contradicts others statement. It is just 5 different events. Why is it so difficult for you people to understand. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

As I said earlier, we rely on reliable sources and not truth. Unless you bring in some reliable sources which say otherwise, please don't change. As for the See also section, please read WP:SEEALSO Vensatry (ping) 10:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Which source says it has Rashoman effect. It only says it inspired by Rashoman. If you want to go by source then the randor guy source says film has nothing to with Rashoman then shall we remove the entire Rashoman section. We are not AI machines which cant think on its own. Being human apply your own common scene. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

In fact the film not even based on woman from past. The randor guy article is wrong but did i edit that. So even if the article is wrong it is OK. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Thank you for the seealso link. It says "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Then according to WP:COMMON it says it is Ok to edit by using common sense and does not have to follow every rules. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

I'm sick of explaining things to you. Please go through my answers from top to bottom once again. Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Same here why are you so desperate to have the word Rashoman effect if is against the film. I am so clear in what i said but you just don't want to accept it. There is tamil proverb " naan pudicha muyalukku moonu kaalu" it suits here.(Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Firstly, it's you who is desperate to change the article, not me. You cannot change/remove sourced content and add your POV just like that. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Anyone who goes through the discussion will clearly understand that you are demonstrating the proverb. Vensatry (ping) 10:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

All i am saying the film does not have rashoman effect then why are you adding it. I am not changing something that is legitimate, as if i changed the cast from sivaji to MGR. You are not ready to change then why are even having a talk page. respect other opinions. Everyone has right to edit if what they do is correct. But you and the other one has serious ego issues and you dont want others to do it. Above you have not even see those movies. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Come on man, you said "Yes I am genius compared to you" and yet you accuse me of being egoistic. I don't have a problem removing the See also section. The article says it was inspired from Rashomon. Rashomon effect came into picture only because of the film. It may not have a direct relevance with Andha Naal as you say, yet it would be helpful to the readers who might want to know what Rashomon effect is (since the article talks about the film being inspired from Rashomon). Simply put, See also sections are there for the sake of adding these links. I ain't a good teacher, so please don't argue further on my talk page. Vensatry (ping) 11:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No by adding Rashoman effect it misguides reader who reads it. Even the film does not have that efect we can still have it. So i can post this Rashoman effect in every murder mystery film article. No one will accept it. "See also" section is to give links to articles which are associated or similar with this article to help the reader. The problem you have not even seen any of these movies. You spend so many hours to defend your article you have written for a movie you have not even seen against a guy who actually seen the film and edits it. I cant believe you.(Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Huh, as long as it doesn't say the film was inspired by Rashomon effect in words it doesn't confuse anybody. If it confuses you, don't read the article. I would be pleased if you show me a guideline that states anyone who has not seen a film should be prohibited from editing it! Finally, please don't ask me to explain about the See also section. Vensatry (ping) 11:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You can edit but if u r edit is wrong. Film is inspired by rashomon means "director watched the film and wanted to make a murder mystery" ( Have been mentioned in themes and influences). "Based on" is different from "inspired from". If the films is based on rashoman and it has rashoman effect like virumaandi it is OK. But here the film itself has nothing to do with rashoman apart from being a murder mystery and "rashoman effect" does not takes place in any where in the film then why should you put that. If the film does not have "Rashoman effect" then it should not be included. I am not saying to remove Rashoman reference from themes section. Only to remove the Rashoman effect. No where in any article it says the film that element. every article only says it is inspired from rashoman not borrowed every the plot of Rashoman (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

you give me one source that says the film narration has "Rashoman Effect". All the sources only say the film is inspired by Rashoman. If you don't provide a source then i will re-edit. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC))

But please tell me where does the article say (prose) the film had Rashomon Effect? Vensatry (ping) 13:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes no where in those articles it is mentioned the film used this form of narrative technique. It only says it is inspired by rashoman. "Rashoman" is a film. "Rashoman effect" is narrative technique and was named after this film because of the popularity of the film. If a film is inspired by another that does not mean it uses every thing the other film has.

I said in my past post Andha Naal does not have the Rashoman effect. You said you only took them from a source. I have read all the sources and none says about having them in its narration. I am not editing about its source inspirations like Rashoman and Woman in question. I am only removing the Narrative style called Rashoman effect which does not occur in this film. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC))

Mate, please don't waste my time. Quoting the first two lines of your reply, you yourself have agreed there is no mention about Rashomon Effect in the body, now tell me what exactly you want here? I'm really curious as to know if Mr. Kurosawa has reincarnated! Vensatry (ping) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing Rashoman Effect in see also section. (Ganeshiyer3000 (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC))


CI player page is wrong. They have used their regular 'expand the first initial if we don't know his given name' algorithm. I am familiar with his first name because he used to play for SL when I started following cricket :-) Check the first name in the links here - (excl a few Ask Stevens, where a guy with that name has asked questions) or the only hit in Wisden where his name is given in full. Tintin 12:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I trust Wisden more than Cricinfo. I was born five years after you started following cricket, so fair enough! :) Vensatry (ping) 13:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Tintin1107: You must be knowing about this man. A few days ago while going through this article, Sangakkara had compared him with Aravinda de Silva and Jayasuriya. I was astonished after reading the first three lines of his Wiki article. Someone who never played Test cricket, averaged in the low 40s in just 11 First-class matches that he played, I'm really wondering why is he celebrated! Vensatry (ping) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The chief reason for his fame over here is a 215 that he scored in Madras in 1947 that was witnessed and written about by several writers. But it is surprisingly not mentioned in the article. I guess most of the critics would have seen him very few times, so would have made their judgement based on his style rather than the runs scored. Many of the greats, including Victor Trumper, may not rate very high if we look only at the numbers. Worrell may have been impressed by Satha's style, or perhaps was just being nice ! Sobers' comment looks dubious. His first trip that way was in 1958/9 but which time Satha would have stopped playing serious cricket, having spent some of the previous years in court, jail etc. In any case, Sobers was only 22 and it would be too early for such an opinion to be taken seriously. Tintin 02:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"Worrell may have been impressed by Satha's style, or perhaps was just being nice" - Roflmao Vensatry (ping) 13:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Sobers' claim was dubious. See this – quite an interesting piece! Vensatry (ping) 13:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


I want to let you know that I have resolved your comments by removing that stuff about its official entry (as you asked). Hope, its fine now. If you could see more issues and put them down, I'll be happy to resolve. Thank You.—Prashant 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prashant!: I'm repeating it for the 'n'th time: You need not constantly ping me. Have some patience! Vensatry (ping) 19:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page comment[edit]

Why did you delete my talk page comment at Talk:Ariana Grande? I assumed you were a newbie and then came over here to see that you are an experienced editor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: My bad, I was browsing WP through my mobile. Thanks for notifying! Vensatry (ping) 06:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, no problem. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pathala Bhairavi[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Archived page Vensatry (ping) 14:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for P. Krishnamoorthy[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Archived page Vensatry (ping) 15:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Films seen[edit]

Watched Agni. You were right. It was indeed an excellent film and I have given 4/5 for the same. I'll catch up on Moodu Pani tomorrow. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of this edit. What a stylish film from Mani!—Songs, their picturisation, BGM, above all deft direction by the master! Did you know, this was the film that told what's pace (in screenplay) to the Tamil audience? Vensatry (ping) 11:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)