:{{Re|Kautilya3}}Obviously !! Got stuck in RL.Some time tomorrow:)[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
:{{Re|Kautilya3}}Obviously !! Got stuck in RL.Some time tomorrow:)[[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">''Winged Blades''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style= "color:green">Godric</span>]]</sup> 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
== RfC of deletion at [[Talk:Kashmir conflict]] ==
I have taken a count of the participants on the second RfC on [[Talk:Kashmir conflict]]. Those in favour of keeping the controversial sections number 6 and are outnumbered by those in favour of removal (they have 7). The latter also have more policy based arguments. What should be the next appropriate step? I will refrain from any action myself on the article until you say whether the removals are to be done or not at this time. Awaiting your instructions. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I am Godric. I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm always happy to help. Alternatively, type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
Hi Winged Blades of Godric. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From WP:NPPAFC. Opt-out. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
.[reply]
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
Technical news
You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
Arbitration
Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Hi - you started to close the discussion on White supremacy here, do you still intend to close it? Doug Wellertalk 13:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DougWeller:--Thanks for reminding.Entirely forgot about the issue.Will be closing it within 2-3 days (once I get my hands on a PC):)Winged Blades Godric 03:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades Godric 03:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Godric, re: this query, if Brad-Pitt-fan or Obamaisgod wanted to edit those respective articles, there's no clear policy in place to sanction them from doing so just on the basis of their usernames. TrueInsan, per my reading of the username policy, does not appear to be a violation. If there's a specific part you'd like me to look at again, please tell me. If TrueInsan is directly related to the subject, and is deeply emotionally tied to the subject as a religious adherent might be, then they might be strongly discouraged from editing per our conflict of interest behavioral guidelines, but they are not de facto barred from editing so long as their edits don't contravene other policies. If they were writing about how fantastic Singh is or editorialising about his criminal conviction, they'd be violating our NPOV policies, which would be sanctionable. But so long as they're editing with integrity, there's not much to do administratively. Hope that helps, even if unsatisfying. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moot as the editor is indefinitely blocked. Doug Wellertalk 12:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes
I was thinking that too. Got an itch in the old AfD finger eh? ;) :) — fortunavelut luna 18:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your unilateral move to draft of this page, especially since I under an unfair editing restriction so I can't move it back. If you really don't like it, go to AfD. No one wis likely to improve it in Draft space. It's already not promotional and well referenced. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Godric, I noticed you reversed my edit regarding the DOY-guideline. You accompanied it with the comment I already addressed on my talk page to Deb about the issue...Any issues about my actions take to AN. Where can I find it? It is not on this talk page.Emiel (talk) 07:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Emiel, thanks for stopping by! Please view the intended thread at my alt. acc. t/p at User talk:Godric on Leave.I have no opinions on the merit of the arguments, except that it's a bit extraordinary and given that the phrase change was executed in a perfect policy-based manner, it's time for you to regain a consensus via the RfC which will prob. settle the debate for a long long time.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 09:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the ping. Don't let my edit count fool you; I'm quite a novice in the field of project discussions. I must say this discussion (so far) has been an interesting experience indeed! ~~
pp
It was just a short 30min protect to keep trolls away. You edited 30 seconds after the protect was lifted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung:--Phew! 30 seconds?! I sneaked in right after the protection ended! Anyway, keeping track of times (the edit history of any page is displayed in local time while logged actions are always in UTC!) from mobile devices is a bit troublesome.By the way, I feel that it's best to plain ignore and revert stray oppurtunistic comments.For an example take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations (2nd nomination).Cheers:) Winged Blades Godric 16:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals.
ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden.
Hello Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Hi, just want to ask you that can we take Sidharth Slathia to AFD? It has been deleted several times in the past and seems to be a promotional stunt by a fan.-Umair Aj (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
00:21:57, 22 September 2017 review of submission by 65.152.183.234
I saw that this article was rejected for not having good enough sources, as detailed in the Notability (music) guidelines number 1. I agree with this judgment. However, the guidelines state the band "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" and criterion 6 does apply to the band "Mr Epp and the Calculations". Two of the members, Mark Arm and Steve Turner were later in the "notable" bands Mudhoney and Green River. I edited the links for Steve Turner and Green River so that they link properly to the specific musician and band articles instead of the more general listing of all articles about those names. This is my first time doing Any editing, so thank you for reading, and considering.
65.152.183.234 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG trumps WP:SNG. Ultimate criterion is that whether it passes notability on it's own. The criterion were devised since most bands which passed which passes these criterion usually manages to clinch GNG. Regretably, this fails.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to close?
Greetings Winged Blades! A few days ago you indicated that you intended to close Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Accusations of bigotry, and the RfC has remained in a "pending close" state since then. Are you having trouble closing the discussion or did you just need more time? Or a gentle reminder? In any case, thanks for your diligent work handling so many close requests! — JFGtalk 15:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG:--Thanks for the reminder and your appreciation.Please see my reply to Melanie about the same issue at the t/p of my alt-acc. Winged Blades Godric 16:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks. And many good wishes for your intense studies! (My son just started on a similar path, so I can relate to what you're going through...) — JFGtalk 16:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihlus Kryik:---RMs, RFCs etc. can be closed by a non-admin irr. of the nature of the call.I will be posting the close within 4-5 hrs. of me writing this, sans any extra ordinary situation and you are obviously free to adress the merits of my close at here or at AN for any review (if necessary).As a rule of thumb, BADNAC is typically obeyed in closing XFDs et al.And personally I feel it is better to adress the close by it's merits rather than the nac suffix.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 10:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stop you, and I have no intentions to. I was merely stating my view and suggesting that you refrain. — nihlus kryik (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you acknowledge that it's probably going to fall under WP:BADNAC, why are you still closing it? And why did you tag it as 'closing', then leave it in that state for two days, effectively preventing anyone else from closing it even though you lacked the time to do so yourself? Closing tags aren't supposed to be used that way. Please revert yourself and stop trying to close it; it just seems strange at this point, and (especially given the controversial nature of the topic and the close) it'd be much better to hold off until an admin can handle it. --Aquillion (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
Technical news
You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This volunteer roll call is sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard. If you are still interested in assisting at DRN and are willing to do so by either handling at least one case per month, or by helping at administrative and coordination tasks on monthly (at least) basis, please add your username here. Volunteers who do not add their username on the roll call list will be removed from the volunteers list after November 15, 2017 unless it is chosen to have them retained for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. In case you are removed from the volunteers list, you may re-add your username at any time. However please do so only if you can and are willing to participate as described above.
Either ways, I would like to thank you for your participation and assistance at DRN so far, and wish that you will continue contributing to the encyclopedia and assisting when available.
The DRN coordinator, Kostas20142(talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually never mind. As I was typing I saw my removed edits restored, thanks (I was wondering if there's something wrong with Pearson India, fortunately not). Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 07:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih:--Your source was pretty good.Actually, I was tinkering with the sources and suddenly got into an edit conflict with you.And my sloppy workflow meant that I failed to successfully resolve the conflict and deleted your sources out too!(:Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Polemic contents
I think the materials in your userpage, i.e. "Religion, a medieval form of unreason...," are polemical statements. Those are "unrelated to Wikipedia" and attack or vilify "groups of editors, persons, or other entities." Please remove them. Thanks. --Mhhosseintalk 17:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this in the strongest terms possible. The comment is a quotation which is permitted under WP:UPYES. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean one should be forced to remove it. Nihlus 17:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
I agree he's not obligated to remove it under our rules, though it is strongly advised to not use your userpage to make political statements. Especially when the goal of Wikipedia is to really maintain neutral and a high level of academic standards - one man's Muhammad cartoon is another man's Holocaust cartoon contest. Rising above it to maintain a high academic standard, abstract reasoning capability and objectivity is the challenge - so I don't think posting this really offers much to Wikipedia, but he is free to use his userpage for whatever he likes. Seraphim System(talk) 17:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note OP's user page states in big type at the top - "The Prophet of Islam said: A hopeful sinner is closer to the mercy of Allah than a hopeless worshipper.".Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment on his page is certainly an attack sentence calling "Religion", "a medieval form of unreason". Meaning those who believe in religion, believe in "a medieval form of unreason." This should be removed per WP:POLEMIC. This is while the comment on my user page does not insult anyone be it believer or not. We don't have the right the attack others. Per WP:POLEMIC, "users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason." --Mhhosseintalk 07:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Describing broad classes of people as sinners, is definitely judgmental towards such people and possibly even WP:PERSONAL ATTACK if people can be assumed to belong to the category. Describing all people as being subject to the mercy of Allah, may be seen as WP:LEGAL, as Allah is alleged to pass judgement (between Jahannam and Jinn), and even seen as a threat / intimidation of great harm (both in this world and in other alleged worlds). And obviously there are issues with ascribing divine connections to historical geopolitical figures.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Salman Rushdie's pronouncements cannot be WP:NOTCENSORED off Wikipedia. Instead of badgering Godric, please open an ANI report about this issue, if you think that your case has any merits. Otherwise, please find something else to do, other than badgering Godric for using Rushdie's words. Dr.K. 16:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Yes, Mhhossein, I earnestly entreat you to get more eyes on this at AN/I- it would settle the issue of user page quotes that slag off a broad demographic, once and for all :) — fortunavelut luna 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Fortuna, I may do it sometimes later. It's clear that we're not going to censor anything off wikipedia, rather we're talking about omission of WP:POLEMIC contents from editor user pages. --Mhhosseintalk 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Everbody in this discussion:--Regrets for arriving so late.I am not keeping any watch over this t/p currently.As far as I am concerned, I don't see any immediate problems .Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein:-I am tempted to say that the statement on your user-page attacks or vilifies hopeless worshippers.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Godric on Leave: Absolutely not. Untrue. In an age of reason, such statements are a rallying cry to help the blind see. They are, A Good Thing, and should be Mandated By Policy. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna(Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 13:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:-Thanks! Your reply, irrespective of it's content, pleased me quite a lot!By the way, it seems from your t/p thread, that you missed my e-mail, day before yesterday.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Godric asked me to comment here after I asked him about something else wiki-related. The statement is not a polemic, and I disagree with it pretty strongly (and no, that's not revealing my personal belief or lack of belief in a divinity.) A quote by a very famous author is not a polemic here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Godric's comment. Farewell until that day comes. Dr.K. 18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-42
15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
Editorial: Annotations
Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?
ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.
As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.
Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.
An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.
Hello Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, WBG - would you please participate as a WP:3O at Talk:Chris Sherwin, scroll down to the local consensus iVotes and offer your opinion as to how the consensus should be closed? Thanks in advance...Atsme📞📧 15:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for some background, this isn't a 3O case because we have multiple editors. The admin who just protected the page has also said that there is ongoing discussion where it wasn't appropriate to undo page protection, so it's rather inappropriate to suggest a close request immediately after that just happened. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct - I'll take it to DRN. Apologies for the disturbance, WBG. Atsme📞📧 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to re-establish the article. Thanks!
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Is it not a high school, godric? Then those are usually kept and not redirected to their district, unlike middle schools. Galobtter (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe:-Hmm... my eyes met the first source but I did not consider it sufficient or non-trivial enough.Anyway, two sources are sufficient to flesh out a stub!Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter, as a note, high schools have to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. If you feel those two sources are enough to do so, then by all means carry on, but I thought I should mention it. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
@Primefac: I do know that But I find that they're usually're kept at AfD under the assumption of more sources being found. So I don't see why this case has to be different (it's essentially a deletion in disguise, I think Godric should've AfDed it if he wanted it to be deleted as redirecting it to ahmedabad doesn't make sense), atleast assuming there is something to say about the school. Galobtter (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just wasn't sure if you knew about that. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found a third source, so Ahmedabad International School is here. Would anyone mind finding Gujarati or Hindi sources about this school?
@WhisperToMe:--No, that's the motto of the school in Sanskrit! Derived from an Upanishad Sloka, it roughly translates to:--Let our efforts at learning be luminous and filled with joy, and endowed with the force of purpose.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 04:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi, I am Funmi. I got a message that a new page i am creating is proposed for deletion.It is actually my the first page i will be creating on wikipedia. Please i need assisstance on how to go about it, The Individual i am writing about is a notable person in Nigeria's Technology.He has brought significant change to the industry. So i need to know what part of the article i need to change or re-write. Thank you in advance. I really do anticipate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkinkuotuFunmi (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-46
19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017
Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017
WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017
Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.
And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.
Initially, on some rambled thoughts, I thought sock user pages are not meant to be indexed i.e. not reviewed.But, upon not-finding such policies, I choose to re-review it:)Only that, I now discover my re-reviews were not logged and L3 did it.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 14:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, user pages are no longer indexed (that changed 2-3 years ago, I think) so at the end of the day it doesn't matter ;-) Primefac (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, leave it out. Godric made a mistake; we all do. Sure, maybe the question should have been asked before the page was unreviewed, but it's not an omission that requires a bollocking. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Chris, if you are going to ever re-approach me, please shake off the needlessly condescending and authoritative tone.And, I hope you remember that the ANI thread wasn't too far back.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making your threat. Every now and then I seek to improve Wikipedia by questioning mistakes and bad decisions. I was heretofore unaware that you, too, prefer silence over constructive criticism and dissent. Rest assured, you've communicated your displeasure. I won't be back at this talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you are always free to question my decisions and I certainly appreciate constructive criticism.But, if you are choosing to throw words like misuse, desysop etc. every now and then, assuming as little good-faith as possible, with little consideration towards the gravity of the underlying situation, not many would be willing to be passive listeners.And for that fact, neither I nor (in my belief) all those people who commented at the thread even minimally want to see you quit.Winged Blades Godric 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
revert on ae
I notice the informational section at the top of the ae board states " All users are welcome to comment on requests." I'm going to go ahead and revert it back but if I'm missing something here It'd be great if you could inform me, thanks! Gabriel syme (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see now that another user moved my comment up to the main body, instead the 'result' section, that makes alot of sense. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re sandbox edit discussed on Teahouse
Hello, if you know something I don't regarding this matter and are unable to discuss it, I accept your word on that and feel free to restore the speedy. I don't mean to step on your toes if you have knowledge I don't. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot::--Greetings! You are quite afar from stepping on my toes:) And, I appreciate your removal. G3 does not make any sense to common eyes.As, I said, I will assume good-faith and just keep an eye out for the user's activities! Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-47
19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Bite
Don't you think that this "Warning: Using multiple accounts of User:VivaCatalunya" was rather more bite-y than necessary? As you can see from her user page, Lynette is the manager of the Working Class Movement Library in Salford. As it happens, I was standing next to her when she received your warning, so I was able to explain. You're right that User:VivaCatalunya was making the same sort of edits: they were both in the library, engaged in an editathon. I'm afraid that Template:uw-agf-sock doesn't do much agf'ing, and I'd be obliged if you'd refrain from using it without being rather more sure that some sort of socking is going on. Anybody guiding new (or infrequent) editors through their early efforts is likely to trip whatever triggered your interest in those edits, and organisers of events meant to recruit new editors will not be pleased to have those new editors introduced to wiki-cockups quite so early in their careers. TIA. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS:--See my reply at Odder's t/p about why I choose to bring sockpuppets etc. into play.And I have to agree that the template has zero AGF quotient.And again, regrets for the incident:( Winged Blades Godric 03:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain to Odder – sorry I hadn't spotted that before I grumbled. All the best. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Bengali publishing house that runs sockpuppets
Hello Winged Blades!
I've seen that you've called out the sock/meatpuppetry in the deletion review of "Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo". In that discussion, I have carefully laid out the evidence that those were indeed sockpuppets. Since you are a native speaker of Bengali while I have to painstakingly run references through Google Translate (when they are not just Facebook and thus obviously unsuitable as refs), maybe you might be interested in exploring the justifications of the existence of the article about the publisher itself (after I've removed some obviously unreferenced and misleading sections). They appear to be running a concerted effort to expand their "Wikipedia presence". What's left of their claims to fame in their articles is a list of their "notable books" (one of which I have nominated for deletion and another one releases tomorrow, but they've already got a draft for it), the list of "notable authors"—and I have no way of exploring whether there are any refs for whether those writers are indeed signed up to Barnik (though it in itself would not justify the existence of the article about the publisher) and whether they are indeed well-known. And there are several refs in the intro which I'd have a hard time investigating (although at least one of these I have already looked at, and it is just a report about a book fair and in no way substantiates the claim that there were any "bestsellers").
Maybe you could look into it.
I'm entirely sympathetic to the cause of developing the culture of minority languages, including book publishing. But alas, Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion, as we know.
Feel free to ignore this mean instigation if you don't have time for it :) ––––Latreia (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have not been too active on Wikipedia, so I don't really know what to do in case I strongly suspect sockpuppets. –––Latreia (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was even necessary to clean up this draft, just keep an eye on when Taniya is going to try to move it to Mainspace. It is an immediate candidate for speedy deletion, because a book that's just been released can't be notable by definition; so it's plain and unambiguous WP:PROMO. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion right now, but I just don't want to do that because that would delete edits by one of the sockpuppets. While they are being investigated, let the page stand. ——— Latreia (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming
Why are you spamming MfD with things that don't belong at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed through each and every nomination of my own to check whether I made any type of dumb edits like over here but could find none!Care to elaborate?Winged Blades Godric 10:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are CSD eligible. If speediable, tag as such. Has someone been declining or removing your CSD tags? If so, mention it in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're using twinkle right? It is very easy to tag. I note that your User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric/CSD_log is mostly red, so you must be getting them right, maybe your slightly too conservative? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sudden-conservatism may be stated to be a result of conversation with one of our highly experienced editor(s) over this thread! That being said, I ought to have used CSD in some of the cases:) And, as a side-note, if your sole locus of contention was my avoiding CSDing, you could have phrased your opening query in a more gentle manner.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 11:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant to be funny, most of your nominations were citing spam. I like funny, even thought I am not very good at it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Even I seem to be not very good at it:)Winged Blades Godric 11:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The accusation of being "highly experienced" is more than I should have to take. In any case, I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of one who is almost as highly experienced as one who may well be almost more highly experienced :p — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 11:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better, in your latest, to allow a community discussion to take place. That would allow instant G4 deletion to take place, and I believe has not yet occurred. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 09:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..That's why I did not choose G4.But, IMO, after the multiple attempts to derail discussion and move across name-spaces to (sort of)void XFDs and a very well attended MfD, I think this' s a case fit enough for quasi-IAR deletion of such blatant promo-spam.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 10:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At any case, if you think that there's need for an AfD on the topic, feel free to decline my tagging:) Winged Blades Godric 10:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite. But if a discussing did take place, then you could tag G4- which is less liable to- can we call it reinterpretation- by admins, than A7...? Thank you for that permission, one I might avail myself of... — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 10:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah:) As a side-note, feel free to decline any CSD of mine in the future, without seeking my clear approval.Regards:)
I don't like "declining" other editors' good-faith CSDs, it kind of intimates that my opinion/interpretation etc is better grounded than theirs; and why should it be? Of course, dumbassery like G12 on a 20% Copyvio, or A7 on the Times of India should be reverted on sight :) but that's not the case of course. Very cogent db-reasoning, and an equally strong AfD !vote rationale, whichever occurs. Take care! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ZipBooks draft submission decline
I can't imagine the amount of nonsense that you have to put up with so I'd like to approach this in the spirit of collaboration.
The references are all free of conflict of interest. The reporters or organizations that wrote about ZipBooks - including the Wall Street Journal and the State of Utah -
weren't paid or simply republishing a press release that we sent to them.
Is there a process where I can send you email threads that document the back and forth conversation that eventually resulted in a story? I'd really like to appeal your finding here in an appropriate way. :) @Anachronist: Any ideas? Second submit I removed many of the references and still not completely eliminating skepticism about objectivity.
Hello, Godric. I was not meaning to have a hoax on my sandbox page, I was merely trying to test out the editors and templates to experiment and learn how to edit. I read to info page on sandboxes and do not believe my page should've been deleted based on that criteria. I am a new wikipedia and my goal is to provide knowledge and help to people, not vandalism.
YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
November 2017
I just responded to Cullen328 and had seen your approving the action of Cullen328. But, remember Cullen has fallen short of replying to the logical issues/imports that I raised as to his interpretations and his claims of complying with wiki policies. Whether it is you or Cullen, both forget that speedy deletion notice of this article clearly stipulates in the very first three lines that the contributor should be given an opportunity to remove the promotional or advertising content if any himself/herself. On the other by affixing a tag at the end of the article, the contributor may authorize the administrator to do it himself the editing of the article freeing it from promotional or advertising content. But, above all, Cullen has failed to answer my contesting him how can he describe mere adjectives, which are normally used in respect of all such articles posted in wikipedia, in my piece as promotional and advertising? How can it apply to a government servant top cop? Did he examine the full import of the meaning of promotional without identifying the end beneficiary of such 'promotional' (disputed) content? You do not apply rules selectively to justify your actions done in an undemocratic manner despite wiki rules clearly suggesting the opportunity to be given to the contributor for freeing the piece from any promotional content. Please have the humility to accept your misreading and misinterpretation. Do not try to teach Professors. Please restore the piece unconditionally and I shall edit it as per your norms and resubmit or post it on wikipedia. Don't be self defensive for the wrong you had committed in the name of complying with wiki policies CSHN Murthy (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I took no administrative action whatsoever regarding any of your contributions, CSHN Murthy, other than looking at the text of the deleted article and expressing my opinion. I deleted nothing here. I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of my role and you really ought to stop it. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CSHN Murthy:--I am declining to comment on your afore-said message, since either you have got our message by now or won't get ever!
S. Saastri
On a very related note, after my massive cleanup at Subrahmanya Saastri, (look at the edit summaries, if you are seeking reasons) an article created by you, there's not a single non-offline source linked as a reference.All that remained were 4 offline sources .Out of those four, I have persoanlly verified that 2 of them don't support the statements they were affixed next to and don't even mention the name of the subject.I would thus request you to kindly upload the images of the pages of Osborne's books that you have used as a reference in the article in some image-sharing-sites like Imgur etc. and bring the upload links to my t/p for a proper verification or use the Special:EmailUser function to mail the images to me. Sans any cooperation from you in this regard within a reasonable time, I will be compelled to look at alternatives like draftification, deletion et al.Winged Blades Godric 09:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have literally vanished with going for some sort of clean start, I've obliged you:) I hope, I meet soon with your new avatar!Winged Blades Godric 13:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-48
20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
dear Authorized,
WHY did you delete the page?
I think it has enough resources and knowledge.
for example, this article is too short and inadequate but you have approved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batuhan_Karacakaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayselonline (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are technically wrong since I did not or rather cannot delete your page and only draftified your page, suppressing the redirect and I, except in my capacities at WP:NPR cannot be held responsible for the approval of any page, which is clearly not the case here . Wikispeak aside, see why other stuff exists is a pathetic argument.Further, answer the question asked to you at Dlohcierkim's talk-page.Also, read about what constitutes a reliable source and what not.Winged Blades Godric 09:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
..and who in Sam Hill authorized you, Authorized?! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 10:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Fortuna, you definitely decreased the immense pleasure that I felt after being privilege to such a salutation:( Should you not have delayed your question?! As to your query, me thinks that the identity and whereabouts of the authority of my authorization, those data should be better provided by Aysel! Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 10:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
I need some answers because i am may be incorrect or maybe i don't have enough knowledge on this particular topic. Can you tell me how to edit templates if Sources are not to be applied?? If there are no sources then how would you trust that templateIndiaIsTheBest (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First things first, sign only at the bottom of your message, nowhere else.We trust the template as a continual accurate reflection of the broader article or set of articles on the topic.And time has shown, that sneaking in unsourced entries at any template get caught easily by one or the other within a short span of time.That being said, if you believe that any entry is not supported by sources in articles etc, start a disc. at the template t/p.Winged Blades Godric 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you edit templates? If templates don't need sources, then should we just edit them with whatever that comes in our mind?
Or should the classification be based on reliable resources? Which indeed i have... Take a look to this page sir
If you agree on this Google Book source, please change back to my edit sir. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndiaIsTheBest (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do neither have the competency nor the motives required to participate in en.wiki.So, why not move to reddit etc.? Winged Blades Godric 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
Technical news
Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
You recently closed a requested page move here as kmd. I'm a bit perplexed, what does it means? Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion.I don't have the faintest of idea(s).Rollbacked.Winged Blades Godric 09:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Requesting a RfC from the Village pump to be closed.
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. I was wondering if you would be willing to help close this RfC or bring it to the proper forum to be closed. I believe that it has been technically abandoned without any resolution despite seeming to be a controversial issue. I was thinking of making a request on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but I have declined so far since it might just restart the debate without ending the prior one. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for doing so. I will say that there is a link to the RfC in the regular archive, so there should not be any archiving issues unless I have missed something. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-49
17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Tanvi Dogra
Hello there, the draft you moved named Draft:Tanvi Dogra is with many of reliable sources of Indian news sites like Times of India and others, then why it fails WP:BLP and WP:Notability ? Because it is with a stub template. Many of Indian television actor and actress's articles of Wikipedia and they are same properties like references. HINDWIKI • CHAT 12:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HindWIKI::--See WP:OSE as a rebuttal to your last point.And, I did not say, it failed WP:BLP.As to my decline, I do not find that any of the two sources, (barring the 2 TOI ones), covers her in a non-trivial manner.And I provide considerable less weight to city-entertainment-supplements of any Indian daily, courtesy its huge use as a promotional tool by different folks.I will re-assert that she is a WP:NOTNOW candidate.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 13:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you are a experienced editor of Wikipedia all time and I agree with you. Please I want a suggestion from you. See my pending changes related contribution here and suggest me become a Pending changes reviewer?. Thank you HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely look at anything beyond the scenes of NPR and PM at PERM.So, I decline to make any comment.You may try out at PERM, where an admin will review the request.Winged Blades Godric 16:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 18:58:22, 5 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cougarsurf
Hey there! Thanks for the feedback on my draft, Draft:Evan Goldstein. Just wanted to get some added clarification on what you think the priorities items should be. It sounds like it was an issue of sources in the first part of your note, but you also commented on the language. Do you think the latter needs some tweaking? It may be a little robotic, I was just trying to mimic the language of some other doctor pages I found. Thanks!
Hi,Cougarsurf, greetings! I will be going offline now and hence, will be posting a detailed reply tomorrow.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 19:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I will be analyzing the sources:--
Source analysis.
Ref 10:--Fails our guidelines for a reliable source.Advocacy site.N
Ref 9:--Typical promotional medium for brands.See this.Fails WP:RS.N
Ref 5/7:--Same reference.NYP republished the Moneyish piece.Passes WP:RS.Good covg.Y
Ref 4:--An opinion/self-field-promotion piece authored by the subject.Does not lend to notability.N
Ref 3/6:--Both are same.Fails WP:RS.Advocacy site.Seems typical promo-spam.N
Ref 2:--Very short piece and short covg. Half-hearted Y
Ref 1:--Good!Y
On the basis of the above 2.5 ticks, I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:GNG.So, please look out for more sources that passes WP:RS and covers the subject non-trivially in a subjective fashion.
Lines like He has stated that his motivations are to focus on the mostly underserved surgical needs of the gay community and He offers additional support for the..... looks typical subject-promotion material and imparts a resume-like tone which is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedic article.
@Winged Blades: Thank you for sharing those details on the sources and language. I was trying to provide some context on Dr. Goldstein himself, but I agree, it may be too trivial for inclusion. I'll look for some new sources that seem less promotional... perhaps a medical journal or some other citation on the surgeries he's engineered.
@Cougarsurf:-Definitely agree.And you are putting your efforts in a very good direction.If you need any help as to any on-wiki-aspect, feel free to ask me.As a side-note, at the end of any post in any talk-page, please put ~~~~ which will automatically sign your post.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 06:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bajrang Dal
Do not revert changes. Use talk page to discuss.Mntzr (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.Definitely elated at the prospects of the first 'pedian to have an invisible RFA.And isn't it well-hidden by a red-link?! And 54129, remain cautious, for history has shown that the variance in democracy is often interesting :) Winged Blades Godric 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
mail
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I really don't know where we are going with the prof. He doesn't appear to be deliberately disruptive, but for an educated man, he seems resistant to/incapable of following our rules. Anyway, you seem to be his current public enemy number 1! I constantly feel that I should take some restraining action, yet he appears to be editing in good faith, at least in his view. Sigh... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Is there a culturally driven styling involved in his writing that requires it to be so gushy and simpering and almost worshipful? At any rate. He certainly has the ability to write. If we can just harness and direct it into NPOV and if he can avoid unfortunate metaphors/similies, as well as accusing others of ganging up on him. I know it's hard to source some subjects from so far back in time. Unfortunately, it may be he's the only person writing about these subjects. In which case it's OR or primary sourcing. He might want to publish this elsewhere if he cannot hone it to meet Wikipedia's requirements. This is Y I have a personal web page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim:Ha! I don't have much idea/analysis about culturally driven editing but Tinucherian, Tito dutta, Bhavani et al are sysops from India with quite proficient article-writing skills and AFAIK, the GA cup for the last time was won by an Indian.So, I guess it can't be too over-generalized.Your idea of using his personal website rather than WP very good esp. when he cannot live up to our editorial standards for some or the other reason. Winged Blades Godric 04:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And self-ref-spam in the context means citing to research-documents published by him, not to own websites.Winged Blades Godric 06:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Also, while I agree about the difficulties of procuring sources in English from old eras in southern states, that does not give you any right to mis-use offline refs to support certain statements which are not even covered in the sources! And, before removing his self-refs, I scanned across GScholar. Only one of his publications manages to borderline-graze our suitability mark.Winged Blades Godric 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, going by some of my notes, Draft:Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu contained refs that did-not supp. the statement(s).I am yet to have any look at Bellamkonda but FIM may have some idea.But the crux of the issue is that once you have breached our trust by mis-citing refs. esp. in a scenario of using vernachlar sources which can't be easily verified and where good-faith-assumption is heavily imp., folks will remain skeptical of offline references until and unless self-verified.Winged Blades Godric 04:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak:--As to where we are going--I have nil idea except that till now we are on a collective steep descent to a time-sink.The defining time-span will be the next few days wherein Murthy can either heed to our advices and improve his content-writing-style, sourcing issues etc. or remain defiant about getting the things back into mainspace and (maybe) file the case at ArbCom.Either path will lead to an enlightment:) Winged Blades Godric 04:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamal is another India-based sysop who writes better than me, I don't think there is anything cultural other than he is clearly so strongly committed to his language and religion that he struggles to even see NPOV, let alone address it. The people he writes about are, in his view, great writers with devout and saintly personalities, so why can't he say that? I've pointed out to him on my talk that his references don't have to be in English, and linked to a couple of examples, although if he starts using Telegu sources things might become even more opaque. And I wish he'd write on someone else's talk page... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see that you've been listing promotional user names used for promotion at the problematic user names page. In practice, if they are tagged for speedy deletion with U5/G11, they will always be deleted and blocked anyway, see my log for example. Up to you, just trying to save you some work... (:
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note.The reporting to UAA was taking 3 clicks and was a safeguard, in case any admin forgot to execute the block while deleting.Not everyone uses SUPG:)At any case, I will be just leaving the pages with the tags !Winged Blades Godric 08:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is more problematic is admins who only softblock accounts that are clearly companies promoting themselves. Where blocks have been missed, they can always be imposed later. Incidentally, the message below shows that we rascals sometimes get appreciation for our efforts (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite a problem.Some admins seem to softblock accounts created very clearly for promotional purposes.They tries their best at spewing the same spam from new policy-compliant usernames only to be hard-blocked for utilising WP for promo purposes!
Couldn't agree more w.r.t to the last point.Some pleasing calm amidst an ensuing storm:)Winged Blades Godric 14:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades Godric 14:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You message
Thank You very much Winged Blades of Godric for making Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 Kanchrapara live on Wikipedia. I created the article once before, but it was rejected. I again tried after improving the article and seeking help from helpful and experienced editors like you and Jimfbleak, who helped me out regarding this matter. As I am new here, so I am very much happy because of creation of my 1st article. I am now more inclined and committed towards Wikipedia now.
We are pleased to help you:) I'm glad to know that you feel interested in the project.Have a happy wiki-journey and feel free to re-visit here if you need any help.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 15:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To complicate matters...
Hi WBoG, re: Draft:Christopher Karas, it's perhaps of note that this article has been created numerous times, with a big flurry a few years ago. There was some sockpuppetry, and overall it had the aroma of someone creating an article about himself or maybe friends building it for him. I brought the article to the attention of WikiProject LGBT, but apparently nobody's interested in it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment..Thank you!Winged Blades Godric 07:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Log entry
We're done over here for now.It may be noted that ArbCom has already been duly notified of the occurence of the redaction incident and are currently looking into it.If anybody has anything to contribute, please contact the ArbCom directly.Thank you! Winged Blades Godric 15:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believed I fixed the entry that was missing a reason: RD6. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I think I agree with SlimVirgin that these entries didn't exactly meet WP:RD6, implying they were unintended mistakes and removal would be non-contentious. These actions should be temporarily undone until some discussion have taken place, in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, RD6 ("non-contentious housekeeping") definitely doesn't apply here. The entries should be restored. SarahSV(talk) 06:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee:--Sorry for the delay, RL got in the way.I find myself agreeing with Alex.I pretty well remember the non-redacted versions at the log and that of the summaries over here and was surprised to see the redaction mention in the deletion log.By the way, I didn't see SV's message on your t/p and your subseq. reversion.
As a side-note, I don't think replies coupled with undo button is a very good form of communication and would appreciate your's using your t/p.Thank you! Have a good day:)Winged Blades Godric 07:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The log entries are of a block which does not fit the policy of WP:NPA. If I had not been so depressed at the time perhaps I would have saw this. But, I did not. But now I do. The block would not stand to muster at ArbCom, and I'm willing to take this all the way there. And if you got my message, I'd say that's exactly communication. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I get the concerns here, but I would suggest that it might be better to handle this in private either by emailing Coffee directly or by emailing the committee. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is discussing this--just FYI, and I suppose that's all I can say right now. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing WP:Articles for deletion/Hyper Car at the same time you were closing it, and ended up submitting my comment after your close. Unclear why I didn't get an edit conflict warning. If it's OK with you, I'll just go ahead and move my comment inside the normal AfD text, since it seems to be in line with your close anyway. Or, I could just back it out. Whatever works for you. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No qualms:) I am thinking of whether and how it affects the close.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 13:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith::--The last step would depend largely on the promptness of the execution of the merge.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 14:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gee!....I guessed that:) Blame the monstrous Thank button on the mobile-editing-interface.Winged Blades Godric 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there was me thinking you were genuinly grateful to me for maintaining a pristine talk page :p >SerialNumber54129...speculates 06:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admire EEng's t/p the most! Try your hands at constructing that:)Winged Blades Godric
Seen your reply.But somewhat busy as of today/next few days:)Winged Blades Godric 13:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-50
17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Just so you don't think your efforts are not appreciated...THEY ARE!!! Keep up the good work! WP needs more editors like you! Atsme📞📧 21:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:
The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi saw that you made a comment on the page, I've been attempting to help the draftee by providing them with an example opening paragraph. You said you planned to merge the content, could you let me know what your plan is? I had debated whether to write up a small article myself and submit it (can we do that, submit another person's draft?) but was holding off to give the original draftee a chance to work on it. Egaoblai (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, I saw your recent comment. I hope you don't mind but I've gone ahead and made the article in mainspace Saubhagya_Scheme. After a google search, it seems this scheme is pretty notable, not just as news, but with Op-eds for it and everything. Although it could in the future be merged into an electrification in india page. Egaoblai (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Egaoblai:-No qualms:) I will try my hands at improving that and probably creating the broader-scoped article at some later date! Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 14:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Watkin Tudor Jones / Die Antwoord / Yolandi Visser
Greetings,
Can I ask you to engage me regarding your edits to the Watkin Tudor Jones, Yolandi Visser and related pages? I saw your blanking and redirect of the Yolandi article, and I have some concerns about it. First, let me address some concerns you might have about me. I have no COI with these subjects, I have absolutely no relation to them in any way personal, business, financial, or otherwise. The claims being made about me in that context are simply not true. In particular wiping out Yolandi Visser without any discussion was problematic to me because it's not like she's just some backup singer, she's been a full contributor to a number of projects with WTJ, as well as a few without him, do we say she's not notable simply because she's the female half of a creative team? We may need better references on some of the information - sourcing information on this stuff, especially prior to Die Antwoord breaking internationally has been difficult, although I recently checked scholar.google and books.google and a few more recent articles and think we will be able to improve on that somewhat. Thank you. Centerone (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Centerone:If sourcing information reliably, is tough, having an independent article about the subject will be more tough:)Thus, please develop the article on the draft-space and vet it through WP:AFC, once you feel confident enough.Thank you!Winged BladesGodric 07:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Yolandi Visser is non-notable, you should nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. It's fine to boldly redirect an article, but after you've been reverted, it's best to go to the proper forum and get consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I didn't note the AfD.Notable but promo-mess.Winged BladesGodric 12:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
A new bibliographical landscape
At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.
Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.
The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.
But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.
@Nirmol360::--As an encyclopedia, verifiability is one of our core goals and we are very dependent on reliable sources to back-up every information in any article.So, as a primary step, can you create a list of all reliable sources covering the subject non-trivially in your sandbox?(Remember that blogs, youtube etc. are not reliable).Also, DailyMail and RT with questionable editorial policies/practices are not RS, by our standards.Note, that you can use Bengali sources.Also, note that the BBC source does not focus much on the subject and (sort of) mentions his name, in association with the broader topic, in a trivial manner.Finally, read WP:BLP1E.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 16:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
for asking me to look at Karin Flaake. As here, sometimes the request for inline citation for utterly noncontroversial material is a little less than reasonable. . DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 09:52:01, 17 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kupfers
you rejected my article about Cyrus Highsmith earlier. I disagree that the references I provided are not credible enough. You may not be familiar with the typeface industry or the work of type designers in general but they don’t get much coverage in general media, papers or on TV. An article in the New York Times is already as significant as it gets. You see from the list of typefaces that Mr. Highsmith is a very accomplished designer in our field and the list of clients who use his typefaces is impressive to say the least. I based the list of references on the French Wikipedia site about him and only added references and recent events that were not covered there. The French colleagues seem to have less of a problem with his significance. There is going to be a exhibition on Mr. Highsmith’s work in The Hague in March, and a book coming out. I was preparing this Wikipedia article for these events and because I am writing an article and a timeline of his typefaces right now and was surprised I could not find any sources online.
Maybe I formated the references in the wrong way, and I will try to add two or three more, but other than that, I don’t agree that Mr. Highsmith is not significant enough and the sources I provide not reliable. Maybe someone more familiar with the design scene could help judge this better.
I disagree that the references I provided are not credible enough--Fontshop.com, PRnewswire.com, occupant.typenetwork and the like (all promo-spam-sites) and most-other font-related-websites and competition websites which featured him as a judge (cover the subject very trivially) don't add to notability.This is a good source.
but they don’t get much coverage in general media, papers or on TV--That's unfortunate but he does have to meet our notability guidelines.
.....and the list of clients who use his typefaces is impressive to say the least--I, without help from RS, don't get any impression from that.We aren't setting up business-deals for a new font:)
The French colleagues seem to have less of a problem with his significance.--Standards of notability vary widely and sister-wikis are completely editorially independent of one another.
I was preparing this Wikipedia article for these events--Please don't intend to use WP as a promo-vehicle.
and was surprised I could not find any sources online--You can always use offline sources.
Inspite of that, I definitely think with more improved sourcing, he can meet GNG.Regards:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a time for festivities...
Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmastree in the spirit of the season.
What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
The plagiarism issue does not go away just because they claim they dealt with it. Nor is it an isolated incident. See [53]. I suggest we post any of their proposed whitewashing edits to Talk for discussion before editing, since they are not giving you complete information (for obvious reasons).
Incidentally, part of the problem is that they publish a large volume of studies from China. There are well known systemic problems with Chinese research, especially medical research. In some fields they publish effectively no negative results. There are cultural reasons for this, and any publisher specialising in Chinese authored research should be aware of it and scrutinising data much more closely. Instead, they appear to have Chinese editors waving through Chinese authored papers. It's inevitable that this will make them look sloppy and substandard. Whether they are above the bar of actual junk journals or below it, they are right at the margin either way. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First things first, to dispel your misassumption(s), I am notproxying for any editor/any group.The edits were executed in my individual capacities as an independent editor.I am probably one of the harshest editors against any type of promo-spam and is one of the least-likely editors to help any company in any promo-activity.
Yeah, I know pretty well about the often-intentional non-disclosure of negative results in Chinese medical research (which partially led to the 2003 WHO blunder-report on Acupuncture!) and other allied factors.
I, essentially agree with your last paragraph but, unless and until some rel. source specifically criticizes the journal for these practices, in a non-trivial fashion, we are within the perimeter of orig. research.
I see you have used Retraction Watch, a quite decent RS on the issue, to bolster the claims.But the problem lies in the fact, that RW mass-reports all instances of retractions et al (sort of a database) which leads to the broader question about whether the events are significant enough? If you can add one/two more reliable pieces which cover these aspects specifically, that would be great:)
I also see that you have re-inserted the phrase but with no evidence of the review process, so editorial reliability could not be assessed. I downloaded the entire transcripts/emails of the sting, years back but sadly could not locate it now. Would you be kind enough to mail the portion that supports the phrasing?
Finally, our job as an encyclopedia is neither to glorify their acctivities, nor to shine spotlights on their misdeeds.We faithfully reproduce the reliable sources, in accordance with the very-necessary constraints of proper weight etc.Winged BladesGodric 13:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not proxying for them, I have been an OTRS agent too. I don't blame you at all: people will twist and turn every which way to try to get rid of published criticism, and the more bogus the subject, the more vociferous they will be (cf Sheldrake and morphic resonance, or Dana Ullman and homeopathy). The summary saying no evidence of editorial review, I will find again for you. Basically there are 5 tables, and this is in table 5, which is the ones that rejected but without any statement. I am not adding anything re the Chinese issue, but Retraction Watch has a number of relevant articles. Oh, and while RW kind of is a database, every article has significant and specific commentary. Not all retractions get full articles. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2017-51
15:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
No fancy template...
WBG, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was so kind of you to drop by:) Wishing a happy and prosperous 2018!:) Winged BladesGodric 16:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did check and at that time it was 2 c warmer in Bangkok (if that's where kudpung lives in thailand) than in Kharagpur. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 and Galobtter:--To be fair, I did not tally the temperature-data.But Galobter's vigilance must be highly appreciated:)
On a side-note, if any of you choose to, you may choose to avail the opportunity to participate in a unique arbitration at User talk:CSHN Murthy.Winged BladesGodric 13:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew you were a scoundrel.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Etnic hatred, religious bias, illiteracy......he has thrown literally anything he could clutch at.But, irrespective of everything, you've got to accept that not often do we come across such brilliant minds.Winged BladesGodric 13:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And olive branch & holiday wishes!
Winged Blades of Godric, please accept these holiday wishes :)
I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.
Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth![reply]
@Salvidrim:--It was very kind of you to drop by:) And, I definitely have nothing personal against you! Wishing you and your loved ones a very happy, prosperous and pleasantful 2018. Winged BladesGodric 13:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please relist this discussion. it was created in 2008, and the referenced talk page remarks are from 2006. it's now almost 2018, so the idea that it may be used in the future is not a strong argument at this point. in addition, you closed the discussion at "11:24, 22 December 2017" which is not the full 7 days after I started the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The policy states:--The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution and has no likelihood of being used.At least, a TFD participant, (who isn't the original creator) has displayed potential interest in the template and may choose to work on it.Amos has once displayed a potential interest.Even I may choose to have a go at it.On the counter side, I fail to see any benefits of the deletion.Winged BladesGodric 08:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote, by the rates of participation at TfD, three hours wouldn't have mattered a bit in the final outcome.Winged BladesGodric 08:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. It will surely be a learning experience.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 14:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you
Holiday barnstar
You deserve a holiday barnstar, but this barn flake was as close as I could come. And best holiday wishes to you. Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't ping you --Many thanks:) Have a prosperous and gleeful 2018.Cheers !Winged BladesGodric 05:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you use [[User:7&6=thirteen]] it works. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018! – GSS (talk|c|em) 18:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987:--Many thanks.Wishing you and your loved ones a belated (~45 minutes) Merry Christmas and a gleeful and most-prosperous 2018 too:) Winged BladesGodric 19:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... But as long as the page has history, I'm not being protected. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.218.150 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may, though, choose to contact the folks over here detailing your situation and rationale behind your demand.Winged BladesGodric 13:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I sent the email was to detail the situation and request deletion. All I've received are two blanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.218.150 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about what you're trying to describe.If you mean that they have not replied to your request, they are probably looking at the issue.Winged BladesGodric 14:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to some arbitration group or something. The only response I've had is two different people blanking my page, which is obviously something I can do myself. Why did you blank my page? You must have received the email? 99.203.17.167 (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an arbitrator and obviously didn't recieve your mail.I further did not blank the page and just inserted the courtsy-blanking template, after I came across Rob's t/p.As, I said before, you may choose to mail the folks at WMF Support and Safety Team who may provide some alternative scopes.Winged BladesGodric 16:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IHTS is an experienced editor in the field.The curr. version of the article is definitely below our main-space standards but I'm utterly hopeful he can flesh it out into something good.Have a pleasantful 2018Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 08:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! So I closed the follow up RfC you started as a result of your previous close on the Turkey lede RfC. Needless to say stuff happened. Thought I'd give you a head up if you have any input you'd wish to make. Brustopher (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating.I was not following the scape for a while.Have a pleasant 2018:)Winged BladesGodric 08:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your signature uses the <span> tags across wikicode closing brackets. If you could move the style tags inside the wikilink itself, that'd fix it. With thanks. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 06:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK:-I hope to have fixed it.As a curiosity, can you elaborate on the problems caused by by prev. signature ? Wishing you a pleasant 2018.Winged BladesGodric 08:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fixed now. The previous signature is syntactically wrong but MediaWiki allows some pretty hackey HTML, so the markup gets processed. The only problem is that the tags shows up as unclosed on the new syntax highlighter. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 16:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of taking your close of Conor Lamb to review. One, I don't think consensus is clear. Second, national coverage continues. Even if he loses, he will likely be noteworthy, as Jon Ossoff. Coverage continues and I think that makes a clear argument for reversing this decision.Casprings (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is pretty clear in the sense that Delete !voters will be obviously satisfied with a redirect result than a NC.And, feel free to approach DRV, since I ain't revisiting my close.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 05:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Howl's Moving Castle Edit Warring
Hey there. Here is what I sent to Vanamonde93 if you hadn't read it yet.
Hello there.
Strange how this page isn't fine at all, but other movies (including the other Studio Ghibli movies) that have a long production section are fine. That is the reason why I keep edit warring your revision. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Howl not fine to have a long production section, yet other movies like the other Ghibli movies are fine? I'm confused. Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at corresponding t/p.And, long-term edit warring sans 3RR violation is also blockable. Winged BladesGodric 04:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
Hi Winged Blades of Godric, I'm so sorry I thought I left a greeting but apparently not!, Just wanted to say a belated Merry Christmas - Hope you and yours had a lovely day and I also wish you and yours a very Happy and Healthy New Year :), Thanks, –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to worry about.:)Best wishes as always! Winged BladesGodric 04:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mexicans Dispute Resolution
If you are acting as the moderator, please change the status of the dispute to in progress. If you are merely discussing the dispute, it can be left at New. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merely discussing.IMO, a DRN will be of little use since any compromise will essentially run counter to general prohibition against synthesis and original research.Sort of an open and shut case to my eyes. Winged BladesGodric 04:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help with keeping Ty Morse page
Winged Blades of Godric, what can I do to prevent this page from being deleted? I understand your concern for the integrity of wikipedia and respect your commitment to this important cultural enterprise. I created a few pages several years ago in order to learn more about wikipedia and how it works. I tried to follow the Articles for Creation procedures, cite sources appropriately, and review guidelines. I learned a lot about the challenges of encoding material for wikipedia's system, and I continue to use what I have learned, and the pages I created, to help my students at the university where I teach. As I have already responded on my user talk page, I am not and have never been paid for my contributions to wikipedia. I believe that the article on Ty Morse meets the standards for notability as demonstrated by the citations provided. If there are other problems with the the article, please let me know so that I may have an opportunity to correct them. I am very interested in keeping my pages alive and would appreciate your expert advice. Jemima1418 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I extremely appreciate your enthusiasm and interest about WP but to be fair,I don't believe that the subject is notable.I will be analysing the bunch of sources at the AfD. Winged BladesGodric 04:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for giving me information about the Arbitration Committee and giving me hope for further help. Actually i am new to this so i don't know much about it. Jagat jit singh (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't any considerable info about the ArbCom and to be blunt, the template solely states:--If you further continue with your disruptive activities and don't wait for the establishment of concensus in talk-page discussions before inserting controversial edits, you will be soon subject to a topic-ban from the area of Indian politics,religion,caste et al and if you still choose to edit in the area, you will be indefinitely blocked.Regards:) Winged BladesGodric 16:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
need help
i know that i engaged in edit warring in Bhagat singh. but the edit was truely based on a source. let me clear, although Bhagat singh become atheist later on his life but he was born in a Sikh jat family. the jat is divided into three categories Sikh jat, Muslim jat and Hindu jat and bhagat singh was born in a Sikh jat family, but here it has only mention jat. Here are the sources which clears it, please see[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] so, i need your help by supporting me on this issue on Talk:Bhagat Singh--Jagat jit singh (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please review the article and remove the deletion tag if fixed. Please also share your thoughts on the article's talk page. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Youngnoah (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Winged Blades of Godric, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
I noticed, however, that the page is a copy of the deleted revisions of the Pa Sulay Njie article, which was speedily deleted for being a blatant hoax. Why are we recreating articles deleted as hoaxes in userspace? Just because there is an OTRS ticket doesn't mean we should bypass the usual methods for appealing speedy deletions. Mz7 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7:--You've got the facts wrong.I asked RHaworth to email the deleted version and the revision history.On initial searches, I doubted that it might not be a hoax and choose to create it at userspace for running IABot and a detailed review.(Without any comments on the merits of the article), my assumptions were correct i.e. the article is not a hoax and I have subsequently asked RHaworth to restore it.Also, I frankly don't see how I am bypassing speedy-deletion-appeal methods;WP is not a bureaucracy.Anyways, the purposes of the sandbox are met and I am tagging it under G7. Feel free to delete it. Winged BladesGodric 03:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay excellent – I was merely concerned that an apparent hoax was being reposted, and you’ve addressed these concerns. Naturally Wikipedia isn’t a bureaucracy, but the “proper” speedy deletion appeal method is to contact the deleting administrator, which you did correctly. In any case, I’m sorry that I may have come off as overly confrontational, and I apologize as well for the false accusations. I jumped too quickly to conclusions and should have just asked what was going on. Self-trout. Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, Winged Blades of Godric! I hope our exchange above hasn’t completely soured the festive mood. I hope we can work together in 2018. Mz7 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mz7:-Many thanks for your wishes.It's just minutes into 2018There was nothing in the last thread that soured my mood (Sorry, if my reply was a bit terse). And I too eagerly look forward to collaborative endeavours in future!Warm Regards:) Winged BladesGodric 18:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)-The article in question is a very controversial topic .Many people have many ways on perceiving a particular event especially when linked with such a controversial person. This is why unless multiple sources report a big issue we don't include such stuff in the article.(If we were to include every bit of criticism in the article it would become almost an attack page) — comment added by Force Radical«talk🎄contribs» 16:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000:--Thanks.Best wishes to you too! I hope our exchange at the 3RRN case hadn’t soured your festive mood.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Help for an article
Dear Mr,
I just Newbies who want to write an article about my fav football club
I have a fav football club that play in highest level in my country Indonesia,
but when I try to write about my club's Super Star (Hari Nur Yulianto) in english version, They deleted my article. even 2 times.
you know, in Indonesian version the article about Hari Nur Yulianto keep existing.
How can this article keep existing in wikipedia? as a newbies I need your help Luthfi Waskitojati (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Giada del Drago
Thanks for message. In normal circumstances I might look again, and perhaps attempt to head off the 'postcode lottery' which Wikipedia seems to have become. As a former journalist, editor and author, I'm all for editorial rules and guidelines, but only if they are applied consistently and fairly, and experience leads me to conclude this is not (and perhaps has never been) the case. Some editors pass an article with a nod and a cheery wave, while others seem determined to treat it as some kind of Spanish Inquisition.
Picknick99 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Picknick99:First things first, your language and choice of words was quite great and may provide some insights into the appeal of our processes to newcomers:) Coming to the subject, whilst reviewing is often dependent on the mind-scape of the reviewer and his/her discretion (Otherwise all AFDs etc. will be showered with !votes of only one kind), it's much more dependent on the individual qualities of the produced articles.Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 10:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miroslav Juhn
I removed the proposed deletion and added more information on Miroslav Juhn and more references. I also now mentioned that he is considered one of the forerunners of the Praxis School. Nbanic (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Just to make sure I don't get lost in your spam filter, apologies if you've seen it already. :) Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...Just seen:) Looking at the details. Will probably chime in tomorrow! Regards:)Winged BladesGodric 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. While I definitely think the article should be kept, not sure it can be speedied. Of the 6 criteria, only 1 or 3 would seem to be able to be used. #3 would not seem to apply, since the nom did attempt to find out if the place did exist, and #1 doesn't seem to fit since the nom was not withdrawn. What are your thoughts? Onel5969TT me 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOT BUREAUCRACY.AFDs are super-consistent on upholding WP:NGEO and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this will result in some other result.If anybody is very insistent on the red-tapes, I will re-open but that will lead to nothing save a waste of more community time.Regards:) Winged BladesGodric 03:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfinished close
Thanks for your close here. I see the Tfd notice is still at Module:Break/doc and you might like to remove that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq:-- Done Many thanks for the reminder:) I see that the automated script ain't so clever, yet:)Winged BladesGodric 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a count of the participants on the second RfC on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Those in favour of keeping the controversial sections number 6 and are outnumbered by those in favour of removal (they have 7). The latter also have more policy based arguments. What should be the next appropriate step? I will refrain from any action myself on the article until you say whether the removals are to be done or not at this time. Awaiting your instructions. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]