User talk:Ssven2/2019 Archives

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch yn fawr, Gareth Griffith-Jones! Wishing you and yours the same!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Schon, Gerda Arendt. The same to you and yours.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history service award
		For your work on Steve McQueen filmography you are hereby awarded this WikiRpoejct Military history Service 1 stripe. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McQueen had been a member of the United States Marine Corps before beginning his acting career, and during his career featured in a few war movies, therefore I judge him to be obtusely within the scope of the Military history Wikiproject, hence the reason for the award :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, TomStar81. That's very kind of you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the GA Wikicup requires that you do more reviews, I suggest you pick up October and Raja Harishchandra. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before going for a fourth FAC, I've opened a PR. Is there anything I should do to attract commenters? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the reviewers of the previous FAC to take look at it and make further comments and polish the article before taking it for a fourth FAC, Kailash29792.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to start the review? Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Yashthepunisher. I'll start tomorrow. First thing.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per Template:Cite web, "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work". So I'd use CBS Interactive in the publisher field, and Metacritic under website. Although some may not follow that because the website field italicises (which all websites should not be), this was discussed here. Also, are you using the new ProveIt, and not the old one? --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you have signed up to compete in this year's WikiCup! There are about 2 weeks left before the first round ends – if you haven't yet made your first submission, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you seriously editing these days, just reverting vandals and monitoring the 2000 Challenge. What's keeping you from editing of late? On an unrelated note, after all efforts I've only managed to get two commentators for Mullum Malarum's PR. While I continue my efforts, can you please see what more can be added from Mahendran's book? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Busy with project work, Kailash29792. I'll see what I can do on MM with that book.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see that you self-reverted when you used rollback on one of my contributions, but that led me to look into your edits. I see that you use WP:ROLLBACK often for edits which do not appear (to me) to meet the strict criteria at WP:ROLLBACKUSE. For example, your very long series of rollbacks at Sukumar (director) in which you have reverted every non-autoconfirmed editor who has edited the page in any way since, as far as I've looked, July of 2017. Of these edits that I've reviewed, they appear (to me) to be constructive changes, adding referenced information or making minor formatting corrections. None are obvious vandalism or obviously made by a block-evading editor, which are the only criteria by which your use of rollback in these situations is allowed by the policy; you are not allowed to use rollback in any other situation, such as reverting edits which you disagree with. In these cases you are permitted to undo the edit only if you supply an explanation in the form of an edit summary, a message on the article's talk page, or a message to the reverted editor.

Per the policy, please explain these rollback actions, chosen semi-randomly from your recent contributions:

• on Manam (film)
• on Cary Grant
• on Bhale Bhale Magadivoy
• on Dookudu
• on Vikram Vedha

Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain my rollbacks if any sign of vandalism is seen from now on, Ivanvector.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Can you add a simpler translation in the lead, then a footnote expanding on the meaning? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now he has been listed again, you may list his creations at the 2000 Challenge page after finding them here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid}, I am very much impressed seeing your userpage and can you help me review an article which I had nominated for Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Thanks in advance. AhamBrahmasmi (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well and having a wonderful weekend so far. I was wondering if you could review the above FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest, but I just thought that I might as well ask. Either way, have a great day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ssven2. I'm just posting to let you know that List of accolades received by My Name Is Khan – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 8. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice of you, Giants2008. Thank you very much.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See what you can add. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the gadgets page under "preferences", you will see you now have an option to install scripts by clicking "install", without having to copy the code onto your common.js page. Just try it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've supported your FLC, can you please return the favour? Please invite someone to comment at MM's PR or read Mahendran's book to see what more to add. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promoting my The Princess Diaries (film) article to GA!! Changedforbetter (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thank you so much for this kind gesture, Changedforbetter. I'm on a diet but thank you for this Brownie. I really appreciate it. Did you consider my proposal and favour?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, responded to your messages on my Talk.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be so till this Sunday. If anyone posts comments at MM's PR, please address them. But it is more important that they actually post comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 2 of this year's WikiCup! There are only a few days until the second round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 05:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

So you are the one who wrote all these wonderful articles on Tintin. Great work, I learned a lot from them :) VividImpression (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, VividImpression. I reviewed them. I only co-wrote The Castafiore Emerald with Midnightblueowl and Prhartcom, who wrote all of the articles together and deserve most of the credit.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 03:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find youtube videos and blog entries for the china trip, so I removed it altogether. Should have everything addressed now. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more remaining, MPJ-DK: "Observer editor Dave Meltzer would later speculate if Urive was rushed into a WWE ring too soon and not given time to acclimate to the much different rings used in WWE compared to what he was used to in Mexico. In addition, most of his opponents were not used to working the lucha libre style and communicating with Urive who speaks primarily Spanish. After his return to Mexico Urive has not displayed the same tendencies to "botch" moves during a match." — There's no source(s) for this paragraph.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notes, I am working on finding the exact reference for that section. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Billa 2 release poster.jog.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weeks ago you asked me "Btw, which one of Wehwalt's comments do you need me to address?". Sorry I didn't reply earlier since I was travelling. Now my reply is, I'll try addressing them myself, you please read pages 106 to 122 and add any extra material to solve any confusion, and do add trans-title values to these sources: [1], [2], and [3]. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, Kailash29792. Do let me know at which portions you want me to add the extra materials and the trans-title bits, 'kay? I'm reading through the pages you mentioned for Cinemavum Naanum right now. BTW, I've resolved your comments at LOBS's FAC.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are "மங்காத்தாவில் நடிக்க மிரட்டப்பட்டாரா அஜீத்!", "திரைக்காவியமாக அமைந்த முள்ளும் மலரும்: தங்கைப் பாசம் மிக்கவராக ரஜினி நடித்தார்" and "உயிரே போனாலும் பிரச்சாரத்துக்குப் போவேன்' – சூளுரைத்த குமரிமுத்து இன்று இல்லை". Did you read the book chapter and find anything worth adding? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't notice, I'm reminding you. Page 115 has something worth adding to the filming section, but I'm not sure how to correctly write it. Would this do? Once while passing through Pondicherry, Mahendran saw an Uriyadi Utsavam.[footnote about what is Uriyadi Utsavam]. Inspired, he decided to include two Uriyadi scenes in the film which were not originally in the script. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you this evening, Kailash29792. Pinkie swear.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, you can proceed just like how you have written it to me here.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage has not made any edits after 9 March of this year. Would you be willing to finish the GAR in his absence? Vivvt, are you okay with this? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If its okay with Vivvt, then I'll accept, Kailash29792.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed. @Kailash29792: Thanks for your help. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will get around to it tomorrow, Vivvt and Kailash29792. Post haste.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Take your time. I have no deadlines as such. Post GAR, will take it PR and then to FAC, possibly. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it for peer review here. Can you take a look at it when possible? - Vivvt (Talk) 07:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Gerda Arendt! So sweet of you!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I do a daily routine of thanks - which is selfish, because it's simply creating a good mood - but am extra happy when I recognize the name before I click on it ;) - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 3 of this year's WikiCup! There are just over 2 weeks until the third round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

Hi Ssven2. You certainly don't need my permission, but I'd yes I'd very much appreciate it if you reviewed Admiral Ackbar! I'll be ready to respond to any questions, comments, or changes you may have. Thanks very much! — Hunter Kahn 19:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Thank you for your review! — Hunter Kahn 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the The Legend of Bhagat Singh article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 17, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool! My first TFA! Thank you, Jimfbleak.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On June 15th, I nominated Robert E. Lee on Traveller for DYK - I was wondering if you'd be kind enough to take a few minutes to review the nomination? That would be much appreciated.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi, Ssven2. I'm just posting to let you know that List of accolades received by Kal Ho Naa Ho – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 19. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, Giants2008.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Giving this for your countless contributions to Indian film-related articles. You have been a valuable asset and an inspiration for your demographics. Please keep it up and good luck with Kal Ho Na Ho FAC! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surreal compliment indeed, coming from you, ImmortalWizard. Thank you so much. I also would like your inputs at the FAC if that's alright with you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent clutter and make the chronology of articles seem more linear, I've now decided to follow a new approach: chuck away all retrospective reviews when there are enough contemporary ones. Do you find this new approach good? I think this will also help in Mullum Malarum's FAC success since there are three contemporary reviews, all insightful enough. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good with you then proceed, Kailash29792. If some of the retrospective reviews are insightful and in-depth enough, you can use them as well IMO.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the PR is closed, I'm gonna take it to FAC. But before that, can you just help with two scenes? I want this translated: "மங்காத்தாவில் நடிக்க மிரட்டப்பட்டாரா அஜீத்!" and you to complete the info I added about Sarath Babu trying to skip shooting the climax (read page 117 for more). --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll get back to you on it tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Just a gentle reminder. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, the translation is "Ajith was forced to act in Mankatha". As far as Sarath Babu goes, it simply albeit roughly states that Mahendran was helping out Sarath Babu in understanding the dynamics and chemistry between his character and Rajini's character, Kaali.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've again nominated it for FAC with you as co-nominator. May the fourth be with us (no pun intended). --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ssven2. Just as an FYI, wanted to let you know that I am currently on vacation, but I am still checking Wikipedia. Just wanted to explain so if you leave any more comments in the GAN for Admiral Ackbar but I don't respond as quickly as usual, you know why. But I still anticipate being able to respond even while on vacation. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Hunter Kahn. I'll get to it today for sure. Been a bit busy outside of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've kept you waiting in any regard.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries at all, take your time. :) — Hunter Kahn 11:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a pest, but I just wanted to make sure you were still able to do the review? — Hunter Kahn 02:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn: Today for sure, Hunter Hearst Helmsley. The prose quality is really well done. I will look in at the sources today and conclude my review. Sorry I took up so much time.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for The Legend of Bhagat Singh, "a 2002 biopic of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The film stars Ajay Devgn as the titular character and is known for its direction, story, screenplay, technical aspects and the performances of the cast members"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Great to see this on the main page today. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so so much, Krimuk2.0 and Gerda Arendt. Means a lot coz its my first TFA.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised that it's the first! Enjoy!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are having a great week so far. Apologies for the super random message, but I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC if you had the time. If not, then I completely understand. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing Admiral Ackbar, and I hope I wasn't too much of a pest with my reminder messages about it. I know you are very busy. And thank you very much for the excellent work you do on Indian film-related articles! I very much enjoy Indian films (although I've watched more Hindi-language films than Tamil-language) and would love to work on getting articles about some Indian films and actors that I like to GA status, but as an American who only speaks English, I imagine there are a lot of sources that would be unavailable to me. Keep up the good work! — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and please feel free to sign my autograph book. Lol I used to ask people who I've had positive Wikipedia experiences with to sign it, but I've kind of forgotten about it until recently! lol — Hunter Kahn 13:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, Hunter. Yes, I would love your help on contributing to Indian articles. It would be nice if you also commented on my ongoing FACs, the links for which are here and here. Thank you too for being patient with me.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ssven for inviting another reviewer, but could you please reply here? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We've worked well together in the past. so I was wondering if you would review the article Robert E. Lee on Traveller for GA.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

	The survivor award for featured content
	Bringing an article to FA status is no easy task. It needs a lot of physical and mental hardwork and huge amount of constructive judgement, all delivered in good faith. The pain it causes in the cerebrum needs to be recognised. For one such contribution you made to Kal Ho Naa Ho, i give away this to you. Regards, Veera Narayana 08:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your second solo FAC pass! Now can you please update the 2000 challenge page? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iam new to wikipedia vijay fan article declined heart broken please help improving the article--Andoster (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IARA_Awards[reply]

Thank you very much for adding the archive links to the sources on Rose Tico! I have done this kind of thing with other articles in the past to avoid future WP:LINKROT, but I always did it manually. I see from the edit history you used a bot, but I don't know how it works. How did you do it? — Hunter Kahn 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link will help you, Hunter Kahn. As for the 2000 challenge, I'll update it tomorrow definitely, Kailash29792.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler is still not responding to my comments, but do you think these comments have been resolved or need to be?

• Why is the sister's name, or his boss's, needed at this stage in the lead, when it appears again nowhere else in the lead, and when neither name is accompanied by the name of the actor who plays the part?

It looks alright. You can also follow Enthiran's style of summary of the plot in the lead if you like. That I leave to you.

• Why is a man's doting on his sister (i.e. lavishing uncritical affection on her) notable enough for mention in the lead but without further explanation of how this ties in with the story?

Maybe you can say why he dotes on her so much (make it crisp).

• The same goes for the protagonist's "clashing" (coming into constant conflict) with his boss; why is that, without further explication, notable for mention?

Probably say they have different points of view with respect to their work ethics.

• Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra, who was already an established director, assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing.

This one looks good.

Additionally, I hope you can attract more editors. But he who must not be named (you know who, not him) should not be among them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earth to Ssven2! Did you see this post? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, Kailash29792. I'll get to you this evening for sure.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day Ssven. If you get back to work tomorrow, can you please see what to do with this large para by Fowler which begins with "Hello. I'm not sure what to say. You have been very earnest and prompt in your responses"? I'll take care of Pavan's Veera's comments tomorrow as I'm not too well today. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Hind and Happy Independence Day to you too, Kailash29792. I saw Folwer's comments and it seems to be more of a copyediting matter. Why don't you elaborate the plot a little more and also get it copyedited? You can ask Vedant for it or another reviewer more proficient in English (like Tim riley or Midnightblueowl or Prhartcom to name a few).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: You loved my old name enough to remind me this way? Interesting.... I've replied to your comments there at the FAC. I want to hear from Ssven2 as well, how he feels about any particular change we both are discussing. Veera Narayana 11:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so tomorrow evening.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what a tragedy! Fowler has given his vote as oppose (I wish there was something like the opposite of thank button). And that is one oppose versus three supports. But I'm not gonna force the support word out of his mouth, cause it isn't there and looks like it never will be no matter how I rewrite. Because he wasn't clear enough on which sentences needed rewriting. Forget him, is there any other friend of yours you'd be willing to invite? Please, I do not want to fail for the fourth time. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now ironically the same man who opposed the FAC because of the "confusing" plot has bloated the same section to beyond 1000 words (I wonder why he returned), making it look more like a screenplay. [holds back aanandha kanneers] Oh what an act of generosity! Although I thank him for correcting certain details, I can't find out what to remove (I re-watched the movie yesterday to help clean the plot but he beat me to it, I wonder which site apart from Prime Video has the film with subs). Have you or Dr. Blofeld got time for this? I hope he has seen the movie, but I don't want to risk pestering him. I'm pretty sure you had leave today because of... --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having plans in the evening today and damn that plot's long. Needs a little trimming. I've seen it but it was 10 years ago or something. I'll see what I can do tomorrow first thing.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssven why are you not participating actively in the FAC? What is keeping you from doing so? If it is personal, I'm sorry and I'll stop bothering you (since I don't know I'm asking). If it was your PhD, you should have put {{wikibreak}}. Meanwhile Fowler is becoming even more pessimistic and unsupportive, and I am 99% powerless to combat him since my mental health has been affected by his many comments which are not easy to solve. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, I just feel its pointless to please him no matter how hard either of us try. He always just seems to come up with something. In my eyes, I seriously can't find any major faults with the article to be honest. And his query about unreliable sources? Seriously? He seems to be taking us for fools.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gone! I tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn't even matter. I believed that, with one intense PR and a trusted co-nominator, I could have succeeded this time, but there's always one cynic whose oppose/pessimism triumphs others' support. First it was Vensatry, then Tony1 and now fucking Fowler! I almost felt like crying because despite my hardest efforts I failed. I'll never give up because that is for the weak only. Since I could not please Fowler, I thought you could. When I re-open the FAC, maybe a month later, will you again accept? When will your exams end? Because I have proven that I'm not a powerful one-man army. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goddamn it! It ends on October btw and I will stick around this time to see your efforts get paid off. First we'll slowly analyse all the recent FAC comments. Open up another PR again and go for ti again. We'll try and try until we succeed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why use non-RS, just because it's "needed". Panda619 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Fowler won't take part in the next FAC. But I intend to solve his comments so that no other asshole (sorry, not sorry) takes his place. Do you think Cinemavum Naanum violates WP:PRIMARYSOURCE in any way? (read more here). Fowler feels it does. Also pinging Dr. Blofeld since he is not docile and may understand WP:PRIMARYSOURCE better, and can tell me what to remove. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, Cinemavum Naanum clearly does not as its a biography of Mahendran's ventures. Fowler's wrong on this one. If that were the case then most biography articles on WP wouldn't have become FAs, and yes, Dr. Blofeld's opinions will be useful.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have supported it if I had a major problem. Laser might have a better idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also expressing concern for @Kailash29792:, who, I just became aware, has been blaming me or blaming himself since the archiving of his FAC. See his outbursts of 9th September above and many of the 6th: here, here, here, here, here, and here. These don't particularly bother me—and I don't want any action taken against him—but I am concerned that he is taking this much too seriously, that his current frame of mind will not help him to do what is needed to improve the article. I have just also noticed that people have already given him good advice at Laser brain's talk page earlier, but whether it has had good effect is not clear. . Pinging @Vanamonde93:, @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare:, @Doug Weller:, @Laser brain: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I did see some of those comments. I don't want to get into a lengthy conversation here, since this isn't Kailash29792's talk page, but I would urge them to take Laser Brain's advice seriously, and remind them that if they are intent on getting that page to FA status, they have a lot of resources to call upon. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain, I took your advice and I'm trying to cool down. Fowler&fowler, I'll try to make peace with you but please don't increase your negativity and non-support towards the article that only increases my stress. I'm already stressed by the turmoil that's happening in my family consisting of me and my parents (no, I won't discuss my personal life further). Laser brain, what stresses me is that Fowler is objecting to the use of Mahendran's book Cinemavum Naanum as it is a primary source. However, all primary sources are not bad. Do you think it needs mass removal from the article? I raised this issue here. However, if Fowler is right and it is not entirely usable, can both of you please tell me where all to remove Cinemavum Naanum as a source? I've opened a PR for this reason. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should have informed me about the peer-review. I have issues with all the sections after Plot. This seems to be your pattern of behavior. Instead of dealing with my objections, you unilaterally begin new things. Please reply next at the talk page of the article. And please don't attempt to rush me. This is not something that can necessarily be resolved in a month's time, given that I'm busy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: It is now six weeks since @Abecedare:, @Vanamonde93: and I raised our concerns at Talk:The_Legend_of_Bhagat_Singh#The_plot_of_the_movie_or_a_piece_of_India's_history? I don't see that any changes have been made in the article. Please address our concerns, especially those of Abecedare and Vanamonde about adding "Historical background," and "Historical accuracy" sections. As you can see that the actual history in the lead of Bhagat Singh is quite different from the one depicted in several sections of the Legend of Bhagat Singh article, which wikilink to it. I have added a POV tag to the plot section, as it does not disambiguate between the two. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...or sort of. So how'd your PhD go? You once said you'd be back in "Mid October" over here. Today's Halloween, hardly mid October. But I don't intend to pressure you; if you're not yet back for good, please put {{wikibreak}} on your talk page. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Kal Ho Naa Ho (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]