Hi, welcome to my talk page! The blue banner at the foot of this page is to remind you to SIGN YOUR POST. I might not reply to unsigned messages. I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain , please assume good faith. If I have erred, do tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere. If you have erred, chances are I'll help you get round it, but I don't suffer fools gladly. If you wish to write anything on my talk page afresh, please create a new section, else it may not be replied to!!* This user appreciates patience and believes on approaching consensus rather than "edit-warring". Do not suddenly transfer a conversation going here, at your talk page or the talk page of any article! Please click here to leave a new message. On line now? It is 12:08 AM where this user lives near Kolkata,West Bengal India

Archives

Discussions on talk page Start - July 2015 September,2016-October November-December January-February March April May June July-Present Bot requests and messages Start - 10 March 11 March-15 July 16 July-Present

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_(poet)

Dear sir- I am writing as a new wiki editor because I have added important, cited details to above mentioned page but there has been someone vandalized many people's comments on this page called an editor ScrapIronIV. Sir, I suggest you please allow the news of the award won by R. Shankar and P. Chabira for Muse India Translation Award on page as it is major award for translation of goddess Andal. Also, magazine started by R. Shankar very influential. I suggest to suspend ScrapIron IV privilegs as he continues to make false changes to page and not respect satya. Thank you.

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 (UT}}

• Cougarsurf (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Evan Goldstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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!

Cougarsurf (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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:--

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.

I hope this helps:)Winged Blades ^Godric 16:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

Hello! I've made some edits to my draft based on your feedback. I found a few useful medical journals, made some changes to the language to be more encyclopedic and deleted the sources I believe you marked as irrelevant or less credible. If you could, would you mind taking a look? Thanks! ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougarsurf (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cougarsurf, it's nice to see you following the instructions so literally, but it's just ~~~~ (i.e. no <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags). Primefac (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostas20142:--Do you mass-message these boiler-plates to every-one who has chimed in at the venue, irrespective of the triviality of their comments?!Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Self Note:--Sourcing Ready.Do the dump on Republic, Narada and J.Basu. Winged Blades^Godric 01:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TC)

• Template:Source assess--Highly useful in AFDs.Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Replied bia email on <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/A_Tor_Onion_Service_for_Wikipedia>.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:14, 1 February 2018 (U->

HI ,

We need to add extra information in early life and carreer to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alok_R._Babu. When we tried to do it. You have reverted to old version. Could you please let me know ,how can we proceed with this.

Thanks and Regards, J.Lohith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs) 07:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiranpz:--Hi, J.Lohith, surely. But, do you know A.Babu personally or have any links with him?! Also, since you stated We need..., can you list the other operators of this account or state whether this acc. is being used by any company?Winged Blades^Godric 07:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,i know him personally. Sorry it was supposed to be I. I am working on this article.Regards,Kiranpz— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranpz (talk • contribs)

@Kiranpz:Thanks for the note.Do you also know Srikanth Gowda and Anusha Rai personally or share some other form of off-site contacts with them ?Winged Blades^Godric 07:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to put four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post.Our software automatically converts it into a user-specific signature.Winged Blades^Godric 07:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:--HI,I know both of them personally.Regards,KiranpzKiranpz (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your disclosure(s).My last query on the issue will be whether you expect any financial remuneration or (other inducements i.e. some other benefit) in lieu of your's writings/work over here? Winged Blades^Godric 07:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while engaging in a talk-page discussion, please indent your posts using colon marks.Put one more colon at the start of your post, than that at the start of the prev. reply .Winged Blades^Godric 08:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No financial remuneration or other benefit for this.Just want to know,why you asking this, that whether i expect financial remuneration on this writings.Regards,KiranpzKiranpz (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiranpz:--Please see our conflict-of-interest policy, which calls for mandatory disclosure(s).It may be noted that both COI-affected editors and/or PAID-editors must follow the policy.Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then how to proceed next. Need to add the extra information to article.Regards,KiranpzKiranpzKiranpz (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z33 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee:--Nice template.The design could have been definitely a bit better! But, Alas! ArbCom doesn't want any minimal tampering with the template:)

By the way, why don't you design a semi-auto-bot that showers these templates on whoever chooses to edit at APOL/BLP?! Would be a much better and fool-proof method.Regards:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but I'm too busy having to handle ridiculous crap like today. Defamatory jokes on our main page are simply unacceptable. And I'm someone who hates to say that anything shouldn't be joked about... but I have to enforce this policy. It's like some people want to literally put me in a hard position constantly for no good reason. Aren't there like 1,500 other things people could be doing than trying to make libel hit the main page? Does the WMF really need to be sued here by the man known for suing? Jesus... how big do some people think our budget is? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I'd say.... yuuuuuge? Primefac (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The yugest - believe me folks, the yugest Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the evaulation.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- but just to put the record straight, my comments are generally as careful as a lawyer's, while all the time still being capable of a clean sense of humour. I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, and I just use the tools that the community wanted to give me. I would hesitate to brand any particular individual of being either (that would not be good faith), unless of course they need to be warned for a tendentious spree of either mass passing articles at NPP as OK that have no place at all on Wikipedia, or mass placing deletion tags on perfectly acceptable pages. But I do believe it to be perfectly acceptable to point out that something is a not policy when it it isn't - I learned a lot here through people putting me right on things I had misuderstood.
I never mind it being pointed out if I make the occasional rare error amongst the thousands of articles I have kept or deleted. Indeed, AFAIK, I don't think I've ever had a deletion overturned and my AfD score tends on the high side. Nowt to be particularly proud of though, it's all in a day's work for an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the epicenter that led to your comment, I don't think that Necrothesp's AN thread was any ill-deserved, esp. in light of the t/p thread on Drmies'.And the starter of the thread (Sitush) is a quite experienced-pedian, not some fly-by deletionist.

On a side-note, I always welcome differing views and my AFD-history will show you that I always have an ear for opposing !voters and tend to assume a high amount of good-faith but I frankly don't admire personalities too stubborn and/or too irrational to ever change their opinion and having voices so loud so as to effectively prevent himself from listening to others.My net experience with N is that there's no point in engaging with him.Every of his alternate reply could be reasonably construed as:--Schools are kept and will be kept. Nothing more. And, I have never ever seen him to even take an attempt at providing any sources at any AFD.It is only very recently that this essay popped out!

And that's the primary difference I note between N and other folks like DGG/you taking the same line.

On an aside, I personally prefer to refrain from branding editors under any category and my comment was largely in response to your highly-visible anti-promo efforts etc.

On a lighter note, AFDstats show me to be more of a deletionist than you but I tend to get the outcomes more correctly:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've participated in 2,338 AfD, and without considering "No Consensus" results, 89.0% of them were matches and 11.0% of them were not. YGM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung:--Shot back:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't tell Legacypac to violate their topic ban. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc:--Many thanks for your note.I don't recollect any memories of the mainspacing-ban but stupid advice from my end.Anyways, then, can you please explain the thread by DGG, just above?!Wasn't that too about some mainspacing by him?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking it out. It looks like Legacypac submitted Draft:Tel Haim and suggested it be moved, but Shadowowl was the reviewer who accepted it. Best wishes, and sorry if my message above seemed a bit abrupt! jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never violated the amazingly stupid topic ban and will never violate it. Not one of the editors that imposed has shown their record with page moves/AfC accepts is better than my record, which I've documemted. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

your approach here and your ping is much appreciated. Maybe we can even find some degree of agreement . The people with opposing positions on schools pretty much have to, because neither side is going away. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:--Thanks for the note of appreciation.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018 m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look. Wikidata as Hub One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by Magnus Manske Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by JenOttowa What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. And will keep a watch on the progress.Thanks!~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning I would like to ask for your help in editing the Draft: Israel lucas Gois, the article is very good, could you help me put it on the air? I waited for return — Preceding unsigned comment added by André Luiz nogari (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to but what's your connection with the subject? Do you know him?~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good tar, I am not receiving anything, I believe there is some mistake, here in Brazil Mr. Gois is well known in the capital market, and I am from the capital market and he is a reference for us in the Brazilian financial market, I would like to Your Help For Article Release — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.SAFRA65265 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni--What's the chances of meat-puppeting/plain socking? See and compare Andre's reply on his t/p.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve spam only blocked both accounts. The draft was G11, and I see no purpose in pretending they’re here for anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Did You ever watch [Aks 2001 Hindi Film] involving Manu(Actor Amitab) & Raghavan(Actor Manoj Bajpai)?

2. Did Raghavan's corpse Even get Burnt into Ashes before Spirit unfortunately entered Manu?(73.220.163.13 (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

@Iridescent:--Since your advice(s) to borderline-disruptive but probably-good-faith new-editors often seem to reach out to the fellows behind the user/IP-masks, can you manage to have a conversation with this IP address?You may choose to view this t/p thread and the overall contributions by the IP address, before jumping on.Regards:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jbharakda (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Teesha Nigam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi you rejected due to paid promotions but these are not paid promotions but are genuine news article, and sources are clearly mentioned. These are news articles in general press in India, I am not sure where you have assumed that these are paid please advise

Jbharakda (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jbharakda--Your improvements are enough.That's an Y accept from me.FWIW, most interviews in Indian-Media are products of payment and that is a current consensus in the WP Circles and I have removed some of the references.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but you have deleted and stripped so much text , consensus is not fact , plus you are talking about Sonu Nigam's sister being the sibling helps I guess newspapers approach her rather than her having to, is there anyway to get this text back or is it due to the reason that you believe its paid for ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbharakda (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbharakda:--Unsourced or trivially sourced texts written with the aim of promotion shall stand deleted. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the very reason you mention along with lack of editorial independency in a majority of these interviews , these celebrity-associates shall be more scrutinised for encyclopedic notability courtesy the general inclination of the media to heavily cover the slightest of their moves. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that shall be the responsibility of Mr.X.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Love A Child, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not too horrendous, especially for a draft. . Thank you. GedUK  16:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.Interpretation of G11 is subjective.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged Blades, I have sent you this by mail as well.

I'd like you to know that this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shri_Shakti_Alternative_Energy_Limited_(SSAEL)) has come to you for review after a lot has been said and done with another editor Chetsford.

I understand your view is your view but could you humor me and look at it from my perspective? I'm copying below my first talk with Chetsford and request your reply in the light of the same:

PLEASE Winged Blades, let's get me started. Or tell me why RenewPower [11] is ok.

Thanks, Snathcb (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Sandeep[reply]

AFAIR, your's draft was a clean G11 candidate, written in ad-speak.TonyBallioni--What's your take on this?! Ping Chetsford.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, what are your connections with SSAEL?~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging @TonyBallioni:.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The G11 was good. If they want the prose back, I can email it to them. I don't restore G11 text to user space or draft space. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snathcb - I'm sorry if you perceived our exchange was a guarantee by me your article would pass AfC. After I declined your article creation request you asked me "If there are specific citations that you suggest I replace, I will" to which I replied with specific recommendations for improving sourcing (your question to me). This was the starting and ending point for our discussion: I provided you advice in response to your question about improving specific sources and, having done that I said the sourcing issue was "in good shape, however, if you don't mind I'll ask a different person to review it".

In light of this current discussion, I believe you may have thought I had just given you holistic article creation advice, or that our subsequent exchange had begun to evolve into an individualized article development session, instead of me simply continuing to respond to your specific question about source improvement. I also now believe you may have thought that when I said another editor should "review it" that I was actually signaling to you "approve it" or that AfC review was a rubber-stamp process. I apologize for not anticipating the different ways you might have perceived that. In the last exchange we had you asked me "will it be reviewed in the regular queue or on priority" and I told you I was unaware that anything like a priority queue existed. However, in re-reading that now, I should have realized you might have believed that, by posting on my Talk page, you had contacted an editing service and I should have done a better job identifying and correcting this misperception.

I'm afraid I don't remember anything about the content of your article by which I would be useful in answering additional questions about other issues it may have had beyond the specific question you posed to me about sourcing. I've declined hundreds of articles so understand this is nothing personal but just the reality that I don't commit any of them to memory or store copies offline by which I could reference them in the future. I also have not reviewed or edited ReNew Power, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that article by which I could comment on it. Chetsford (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to understand the convolutions of getting sites blacklisted etc at this place, perhaps you could find some time to look at whether or not newpakhistorian should be added? It is operated by a former WP contributor who also seems to have contributed to jatland. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

newpakhistorian.wordpress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com --Checking:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I looked, there were three outstanding mentions. I left them as an example for you but I've cleared out plenty of others over the years. The contributor went off in a huff a long time ago when their sourcing was questioned. Many, many of their articles have been deleted since but they'd already copied a lot over to their wordpress site and have continued to expand on things there. - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will be seeking a blacklisting. Done~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you know that personal attacks are not allowed as per WP:PA--BTZorbas (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BTZorbas: That is in no way a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BTZorbas: I endorse this messsage. BTZorbas, if you do not actually go and read WP:NPA and its application, then it will also not be a personal attack to tell you that you do not know what you are talking about. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and SN54129:--Thanks!~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged: I agree that it wasn't a "personal attack". However I also don't think it was accurate. User:BTZorbas isn't a "single-purpose account", just a user who appears to be interested in set theory and set theorists. I think most of us got started in one particular area of interest. I haven't loved all of his/her contributions or mode of interaction with other editors, but I see no clear evidence that they are "promotional" or "soapboxing". I should say that Todorcevic helped sponsor me for a one-year postdoc in Toronto. That was quite some time ago and I do not think it influences my judgment on this matter. --Trovatore (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore:--I seem to think that it do influence your judgement.COI editors with the sole intention to promote someone.....Sigh......Sigh....~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you are incorrect. My association with Todorcevic was relatively modest; I mentioned it only for full transparency. I have no project to promote him. My set-theory edits (and my own work in set theory) are generally in areas rather different from the subjects most closely associated with Todorcevic.

As for BTZorbas, I do not see any special focus on Todorcevic in his edits I'm going to use masculine pronouns for convenience; I don't actually know whether BTZorbas is male or female. His contributions show an interest in a considerable range of different set theorists and their work. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Godric. Please take a look on the updated version of my draft with third party sources added about the documentary Shocking Exposures. Thanks In my solitude (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC) In my solitude (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will, surely:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Godric. Please take another look. I've added a magazine review :) In my solitude (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) In my solitude (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

makes me gald I don;t close AfD's. I'd be laughing and crying right now. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Piece of cake: all but maybe one or two of the 'keep' !votes are from SPAs, MEATs, or otherwise convassed individuals / accounts and can (-should) be dismissed, out of the window, pah. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craziness seems to be somewhat conducive.I was surprised or rather shocked to see an editor who is generally observable to be sane apparently willing to keep the article to attract Indian editors! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony.bourached (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Transmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Winged Blades of Godric Thank you for your feedback, as pointed out the text was re-written and references amended. Can you please re-check and let me know. Tony.bourached (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will be chiming in shortly:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I think that this page should not be deleted because Rosa Berardo is a well known and respected movie maker and photographer in Brazil. Her pioneer work on movies in Goiás State, central Brazil, is a mark of woman in cinema. She's the first woman in Goiás State to produce and direct a film in the latest 1989. Her film Andre Louco, is considered the first professional film made in the State of Goiás and is mentioned at the Brazilian film Dictionary written by Antonio Leão da Silva Neto, Edições Loyola, 2006.

From the point of view of gender and feminism studies, Rosa Berardo is an important character and inspiring source fro Brazilian woman. She also has created the firs Cinema and Film Studies School in her state, Goiás, in the your 2000. There were any film school in the capital of the State, Goiania, neither in the State in general, so no movie makers to represent the local culture in a film made by local people. The school has forme about 30 new film makers that actually represent the state in many nacional and international film festivals . She's considered as the Mother of Goiás State film production.

her name has an important whole in last and actual Brazilian film history as the possibility of self representation in cinema in Brazilian communities and states as Goiás, that are not in the main production front line as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. It is very very important for a democratic use of cinema as a mean of communication. So woman and local cultures are represented by Rosa Berardo as a piopneer the has gone trough all kind of prejudices and machism against woman to have her place as the first woman to work in films in very import and big region of the country, the Central Region of Brazil.

Hope those arguments are enough to highlight the importance for Brazilians to have her name in Wikipedia as a symbol of work, dedication and pioneer in feminist films .

Dictionary:

NETO SILVA, Antonio Leao. Dicionário de filmes brasileiros de Curta e media metragem, Edições Loyola, 2006

--AndressaMartins14 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

Will be replying shortly:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the draft for you.Will let someone else review.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Just thought I'd drop you a reminder that the workshop page on the ArbCom case regarding Joefromrandb is operating in a threaded discussion, meaning each user should post under their own heading. You're recent edit there appears to have been made under another users section, so has been removed as a clerk action - however, feel free to restore it in your own section.

Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged Blades of Godric, I observed through the revision history of Bellary that some users have been blocked as socks, but I couldn't discern why. Could you please have a look if more socks are responsible for the latest disruptions. Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 09:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a mobile and won't be able to help. You may choose to inform Sitush or Bishonen, if you find something weird enough. Regards, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC) A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BrowseAloud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KTC (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not personally out myself. An attack account used my real name and created an attack article about me, it was not a conscious choice! Please respect my privacy--TF92 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I will not revert you given the extraordinary circumstances behind the self-outing.But, I guess this's a lesson for all COI-editors, spamming our articles.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. The link you posted in question as "evidence" of the outing was the page to that attack account. In that case, it was not related to self-promotion or COI---TF92 (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Godric! I've made some edits to my draft based on your feedback. Could you please re-check the draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Outhentic and let me know. Many thanks fot your time! Cheers, Rayna --Rayna Vasileva (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayna Vasileva:--

• Hi, Rayna, I've edited the draft and somewhat drastically.In the process, all fluff and un-sourced information, which ought not be present in an encyclopedic entry, unless reliably sourced has been removed.But, rather regrettably, in light of the sources provided by you, I ain't very-sure about how this passes the set of notability-criterions for bands or our general notability guideline.Be advised, that we, the editorial community at WP do not generally accept interviews as good-sources, unless published in a very-reputed source.I would like you to provide more reliable source(newspapers etc.) covering the works/performances of the band.Cheers!
• Also, since you are likely a member of the band, please see our conflict-of-interest guideline and make the mandatory disclosures.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:--

Hello, Godric! How do you define and what do you consider for "very-reputed source" - do you mean world-wide known source? What citation do you want me to provide here: "The name of the band is combination of the two English words “out” and “authentic” and it means “out of authentic sound and style”.^{[citation needed]}"? I don't think it's possible to provide citation for an idea. --Rayna Vasileva (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayna Vasileva:--You have satisfied the citation-criterion in that case.Anyways, we need more reliable source(newspapers etc.) covering the works/performances of the band.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:--

Hello, Godric! I made some new edits, please take a look as soon as possible. Cheers!--Rayna Vasileva (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged Blades of Godric You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertad (Philip Morris front) as redirect, but none of the participants suggested a redirect, the consensus, at least that's how I read it was to Merge. Since you used a script, is it possible you inadvertently selected redirect in stead of merge? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mduvekot:--Absolutely:) I ought to have been more careful! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 01:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. It's the kind of thing that could have happened to me. Mduvekot (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libertad (Philip Morris front) AfD closure

Hi Winged Blades of Godric, I noticed you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertad (Philip Morris front) as Merge per consensus to Philip Morris (tobacconist). No issues with the merge closure, however, I think the merge to page was intended to be to the company (either Philip Morris International or Philip Morris USA) rather than to the tobacconist whose death predates the founding of the company. Thanks, Kb.au (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kb.au:--Can you please ask the participants of the merge-target?~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One participant said to merge to a controversies section, of which Philip_Morris_International#Controversies is the only one, and indeed appears clearly the correct article to merge in. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara: Wikimedia received an email from a new editor concerned about the removal of a sandbox: User:Feroz3/sandbox

I'm about to respond that they should be talking to either the editor who nominated it for deletion or the administrator who carried out the deletion.

I'm writing to you, partly as a heads up that this query may be coming but also partly in puzzlement that the rationale included CSD U5. Please note that I am not contesting the deletion, as the rationale also included G 11, but it's my experience that while we suggest that draft space is a great place to start articles, it is been long practice that I personal sandbox is an acceptable place to start an article, so it doesn't seem to me that this qualifies as U5. Do you think I'm missing something?S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick:--AFAIR, I got the heads-up about the draft from an OTRS ticket itself, which complained about some problems as to submitting etc:) At any case, U5 states:--Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals......Blatant promotional-ism ain't one of our goals and from the looks of the draft, I don't think it was anything except a vanity-attempt at self-promotion.Thus, the tagging...~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, personal sandbox is an acceptable place to start an article but not one to create a blatant-spam-entry about your band!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers/--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your's venturing at my t/p is equally appreciated:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely with WBoG's explanation and rationale. – Athaenara ✉ 15:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged.Expect a reply soon:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ~ Winged Blades^Godric . I just received a notification about your comment. There are basically 5 different national major newspapers' full page articles quoted, and a number of academic articles which discuss 'the work of the subject'. So I am confused what other sources are needed please for verifying and notability. The "tone reading as advertisement" can be corrected, but regarding the referencing it is puzzling. Similar pages on artists are exactly the same on Wikipedia. For example this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golnaz_Fathi if you could kindly give an advice how to re-organize the sources please, because there is no difference between them than say this page just mentioned.

Major national and international media (TV, Radio, Newspaper) which have carried full interviews and published articles about the works include:

Radio Free Europe (from Paris), Voice of America TV station (from Paris), Kayhan London (from London), Times of Malta, The Independent (Malta), The Guardian (UK), Xinhua (China), Radio Rossi, Main National Radio (Russia), NTV , Main national TV station (Russia), Lark News English Newspaper (Pakistan), International World Business Communicator (Pakistan), Prima Edicion (Argentina), Rahavard Journal of Iranian Studies (Los Angeles, U.S.A) ---for example the the article and interview on this very important quarterly journal is 8 pages long!! How is it possible to quote it on an encyclopedia?---This journal itself is part of the Iranian encyclopedia Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/rahavard-persian-quarterly

So how should all these articles be quoted please? Thanks so much in advance Lidasher (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have G7-ed the draft and I don't even faintly remember the contents.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to help out by doing the detailed reading to adjudicate the merits of who has the more nearly neutral wording or who has the better sentence, please do. My approach as a mediator, and it may not always be the best, but it is my approach, is to let the parties explain concisely what the issues are. I won't adjudicate, and I don't want to read long justifications. Any help on your part would be appreciated. As it is, I finally have two wordings, and am about to put them to an RFC unless you want to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..My approach at mediation varies in the sense that we solely adjudge content-disputes and it's impossible to do so without getting heavily involved in the issues.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work and contribution. --Titodutta (contact) 03:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		A plate of Mixed vegetable biryani for you
		Here is a plate of Mixed vegetable biryani for you. Biryani is a rice-based dish made with spices, rice (usually basmati), and mixed with chicken, mutton etc. But, the plate being served is vegetable biryani. Thank you. Titodutta (contact) 03:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

@Titodutta:--Yummy! Many thanks for the barnstar and it's always nice to meet a fellow Bengali-pedian:) Godric trails off whilst feeding on the biryani.......~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Godric, I hope things are going well in Kolkata!

I've been doing some work on the AfC backlog and I need help in a particular situation. Draft:Steve Negron is about a political candidate for US Congress and is currently only two sentences long. I have rejected the draft twice, (both for WP:1S and WP:NPOL) but the same user on a different IP continues to give me a hard time about it. Obviously I don't want to say the wrong thing, and I have certainly tried to assume good faith and offer alternatives, but they have been disregarded. I was hoping you might be able to step in, as perhaps you'll have a different perspective than myself. Bkissin (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkissin:--Things are quite pleasant, over here:) I'll surely take a look at the draft.And, how's life going at your end?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm in Washington DC, so things are always crazy! The weather is pleasant though! Bkissin (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recall your offer to run AWB over the onefivenine linkspam etc and me saying that I'd rather go through it the hard way so that I could fix numerous other issues - overlinking, other non-RS, Indic scripts, no project on talk page etc. Just so you know, I am getting there. I appear to have had some help - Reyk has popped up in my searches on a few occasions - but we're now down to about 1520 from an original > 2400. Gosh, it is boring!

Did you ever manage to work out the issue about a census village/town that I mentioned at WT:INB recently? The place was shown under four different names in the govt census report and I wasn't sure how to deal with it. I would like to finish that particular project but we (the India Project) need to find some sort of consensus regarding how to approach such issues. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can confirm: very boring! Reyk _YO! 07:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sitush:Hmm..I will be shortly getting to the article discussed at the at AFD:) On a side-note, I did run AWB from my alt-account to clean the refs but it hardly sped up the process.While AWB is quick enough to capture, remove the refs and substitute with a cn tag, allmost the entire articles are so blatantly spammy that it's very hard to just remove the refs and let the spam stay.At the end of the day, editing the entire article through the normal interface seemed a much better alternative!~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

This shall serve as a reminder to never ever indulge with AD anywhere anytime.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Over-enthusiastic templating.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Smjg:--Avoid templated messages and see burden of verifiability.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] While the above use of templates wasn't the best regarding the circumstances, I do agree with their use. I find your conduct on the List of Other Backward Classes in Sikhism quite troubling for an experienced editor. If you believe that there is no merit to an article's content, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Removing all the page's content is not the appropriate action in that case (See WP:BLANK). As well, I don't think I need to state that edit summaries like this [36] are not appropriate, civil behavior. Acebulf (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Your advice is noted and appreciated.Don't restore unsourced content with non-sense sourcing.~ Winged BladesGodric 14:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.--See this t/p thread.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly yes i want explanation on a per-source basis.
• i am film lover and as you mentioned i am not getting any form of remuneration (direct or indirect) from writing the articles on them, my happiness is only that i am sharing part of knowledge with world. and wanted to support 'for the people by the people' policy.
• Sorry but i am not doing it for remuneration that's the main problem, because of my edits may be someone will not able to earn the money, and there is possibility these agencies who takes charges for creating Wikipedia pages will contacted you to demotivate peoples like me who does it for interest, and instead of helping them the administrators like you will remove all the work person has did in past some years, and the thing is i learned Wikipedia editing just by watching others edits, and by seeing that articles i edited these, still there are so many articles like me are presented, delete it if possible so that at least they will get the knowledge how not to edit.
• I am Very Much Disappointed by fifth point you raised may be its correct by your point of view, but without any consideration someone is working and you are blaming him that you are working for money ??.
• i respect your contribution to Wikipedia, and my motive to come here on Wikipedia is share the knowledge and information with world.
• as i mentioned above i learned editing by watching others edits, its failure of the Wikipedia administrators (peoples) like you to keeping all that articles on Wikipedia still and the new comers like me will learn from them and get the deletion notice after long time of creation. let it be.

Thank you very much for much more spending time in spending on my edits ! and i am not going to appose any deletion notice given by you, indirectly i came to that conclusion instead to giving knowledge and spreading awareness that anyone can edit Wikipedia, the peoples like you are indirectly supporting to them who edit Wikipedia for money. and as you mentioned that previous administrator gave me the notice to revoke the access, the answer is he did not replied yet of my questions and the reasons which i asked him on his talk page.

Shrinivas G Kulkarni 16:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Shrinivaskulkarni1388-First off Winged Blades of Godric is not an administrator, neither does he support (in fact he opposes) paid editing. I have certain advice for you which you must follow so that you become better at editing Wikipedia:

• Stop editing mainspace atleast for the time being
• Accept Titodutta's offer and read-up the linked pages in the comment on your talk page
• Untick the Treat the above as wiki markup. box in Special:Preferences

Finally try not to edit pages of subject to which you are close to as it has been proven by research that even if you are extremely careful you may end up writing what looks like a fan page to other people which may be thought of by other people as paid editing. Hope you have a smooth Wiki-journey from now on — Frc Rdl 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting callShrinivaskulkarni1388 — Frc Rdl 03:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Godric! Thank you for being a volunteer editor, and for taking the time to reply to people above. I recently created the article Draft:BlueChilli. I declared my COI (I worked there) and sought help in the chat from User:Vermont before submitting, you recently rejected the article for reasons of notability. I would like to seek your guidance to understand what you would look for before I seek resubmission. Thank you in advance! Sebeckmas (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lunarfantom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dinesh Chandwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told the "Times of India" was though? (on the Wiki live chat)

Lunarfantom (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunarfantom:--

• We need significant coverage about the subject in multiple sources, over a prolonged time-span.
  • I don't think that any IRC-guy has told you that A single TOI source will get the article live but if that is the case, he was mistaken.
• And, frankly, I think you have chosen a poor job.Chances are negligible that the subject wll be ever notable per our guidelines of inclusion.Money seldom buys notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Saveydude (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Anusha Rai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello sir i have updated the articles it has come in deccan chronicle request to re review and approve. Saveydude (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not highly convinced and will recuse, for the time-being.It looks like a borderline candidate to me, which may go either way at a deletion discussion.Please wait for another reviewer and in case, it takes an extraordinarily high time, I will probably accept it.And, please try to add more comprehensive sourcing, to bolster the draft.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do it again and I'll block you for disruption. If you don't like the outcome go to DRV. Non-admins and nominators don't get to overrul admin closes without a consensus.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz:--Ha! The warning would have surely made much more sense, iff you wouldn't have closed the AFD after an administrator had already relisted it.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, now explain, what gives you the authority to unilaterally overrule V93's relisting, 5 minutes prior to your closure?~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I saw a consensus and Admins are allowed to take different stances as there is some wriggle room in interpreting closes. You should have have raised it with me instead of reverting too and you may well have got a better outcome then just being plain rude. You know where DRV is if you disagree. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.Doubts become firmer as to your ability at closing AFDs.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed I'm sure. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too!~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I can't but laugh as I contrast Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagyashree Mote and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shivani_Rangole.Sigh....~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 10 – 12 March 2018 Milestone for mix'n'match Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal. Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders. These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more. For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading. Congratulations to Magnus, our data Stakhanovite! Links Wikipedia goes 3D allowing users to upload .STLs for digital reference, Beau Jackson for 3dprintingindustry.com, February 22 2018 WikiCite report (video) Formal publication and announcement of ISBN citation dataset, see Twitter post, February 23 2018 Plotting the Course Through Charted Waters, workshop on data visualization literacy from Mikhail Popov, Wikimedia Foundation Using Wikidata to build an authority list of Holocaust-era ghettos, Nancy Cooey, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 12 2018 Why Should You Learn SPARQL? Wikidata! Mark Longair, blogpost November 29 2017 Back to the future: Does graph database success hang on query language?, George Anadiotis for Big on Data, March 5 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to discuss the wording used in your edit to Y&R ANZ. In the "Controversy" section, you've written "given that many of the social media posts by GPYR were sexually and politically obscene". This is untrue and was fabricated by the original article's author. Can you please read the following articles (Article 1, Article 2) and revise the wording accordingly? Thanks. --Peacenik162 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[53] Please explain why you believe that every member of one Wikiproject should be required to tell people in AFDs they participate in that they saw it listed in their Wikiproject, when none of the other many Wikiprojects on Wikipedia are required to do that. Dream Focus 04:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Please look up "should" and "must" in the dictionary and try to understand the difference. There appears to be a unanimous consensus among everyone except you and Andrew Davidson (both of whom are clearly upset that your weak arguments in the YPT AFD are not being taken seriously) that the amendment is an improvement and is in accordance with the project-wide canvassing guidelines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

↑↑Wot he sez↑↑.Cheers!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix Billybon (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an area of my comfort.Please don't mass-spam user-talk-pages, again.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you work out what has gone on at Gurjar in the last few hours? It is a mess and I can't make my mind up whether it is copy/paste or something else. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:-Not much of a coherent idea but given the mess, reverting is always the best option.My edit-summary was wrong in the sense that he made some changes (transposing sections, copy-edits etc.) but heavily duplicated parts of the article from the article itself, probably in error.I will try to re-insert his edits, if any of them are helpful.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, additions like these, being based on unreliable sources ought not be executed.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just check out if the GA notice is AGF  — FR⁺ 11:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait a day or so to check if that was any editor, in good-standing, editing logged-out.Otherwise, I'm afraid that I've to persuade the IP to refrain.Regards~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Video game music. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Liontamer (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRVPURPOSE states Deletion Review should not be used, when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See this. 19939090.Ha!!~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

∯WBG^{Let's converse}

To pull under 255 bits...

please help me. my article was removed for no reason. I did everything right. I even wrote the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entergirls (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason is wrong by a mile.You were informed of the precise deletion-reasons, at your talk-page.If you choose to remove them, without reading the linked policies, you ought to feel helpless/clueless.Please read about writing one's first article and our general notability guideline, in the meantime.And, in a nutshell, if a Wikipedia article would be the best media-exposure/coverage, your subject has ever recieved, till-date, he/she is damn non-notable and by a mile.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you think Hindwiki was more competent than the rest. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh... Facepalm...That was an unblock request par-excellence:) I scrutinized HW's editing patterns for long and in my opinion, he basically skirted around the lower(??) ranges of CIR, but I will gladly strike my wordings, given I'm not so well aquainted with this farm sans HW....~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't remove others comments from user talk pages other than your own.[62] Read policy/guidelines about removing other's comments and none of them supports such removal. The user in question is able to decide what to do with them. My Lord (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the edit has been removed again, and by the page's owner this time. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

My Lord, do not preach me policy. Whilst, I appreciate your desire to enforce policies, I'm afraid that with contributions, an order of magnitude greater than you, I know what I'm doing, very well.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harshrathod50 is accorded the distinction of being the second person to be banned from my talk-page.Please do not post here, unless policy mandates you to do so, necessarily.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 06:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion had started about your recent hasty edits. Now explain each and everything you did with justification. You just increased your own problems. This is not gonna end soon. Harsh Rathod 11:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Hmmm...Very grave incident...Godric searches for a burrow...But, I would still like an end-time for the opera.~ Winged BladesGodric 11:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] @Primefac:, what are the chances of evaluating AN to be the article t/p?~ Winged BladesGodric 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Not quite sure what you're asking. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] Again, a discussion had started about your use of language to ask questions to other editors. As I told you, this is not gonna end soon. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply] You are redefining ****wit****, at a whole new level. And, consider yourself banned from my talk-page. ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hola oh Winged One!

You put a note on my talk page about having an interest (financial) in the article I was editing. I have an interest, it is not financial. I just kinda like Charlie the Tuna and some of the other iconic characters used in marketing. I confess I don't buy StarKist because it is too expensive. I buy either the Aldi brand canned tuna or BumbleBee. As I explained to Bri and put on the talk page, I really think Charlie, the Maytag dude and the Jolly Green Giant should maybe have their own section. Anyway, I just started this Wiki editing thing to pass time as I recovered from surgery and it is almost addicting. If you know any other pages that need help because they are flagged for having problems, let me know. I'm just stumbling around trying to make sad pages better. Speaking of better, wow your page is loaded with information and I am sure I will be back and use it as a reference if you don't mind. Have a good day and good luck with your studies.Not Wilkins (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Not Wilkins:Hmm...The reasons are convincing and I'm satisfied, at least for now:) But, please be sure to vet that your personal affection/interests about the subjects do not introduce promotional and non-neutral prose. Anyways, wishing you a speedy recovery and feel free to ask for any Wikipedia-related-help, as you may require.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GiantSnowman 15:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But, a tad too late to the party:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Winged Blades of Godric

Please help me move Qidong, Jiangsu to Qidong City and Qidong County, Hunan to Qidong County, thanks. there is not any ambiguity between Qidong City and Qidong County. thanks. Cncs ( Talk) 02:18 March 30 2018 (UTC)

@Cncs wikipedia:-Sorry, this does not seem to be a completely uncontroversial move and I will thus abstain from granting it unilaterally.Please initiate a move-request at the talk-page, pending which, the move may be granted or not.Fell free to ask me, if you face any difficulties in setting up the RM.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Godric, I usually don't ask people to chime in at AfD's I initiate, but today would be exception and I would like to draw your attention towards at least 3 Pakistan-related AfDs which I initiated (Amb Jogi, Iqbal Jogi and Google Tech Mela) and I'm seeking your genuine judgement over there because I believe all three AfDs have merely keep !votes rather than strong arguments. Thank you. --Saqib (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib:--

Whilst I believe that I will be able to opiniate in a canvassed venue, without any bias, it's my principle that I rarely participate in any of such discussions, where I'm invited to, (unless in exceptional circumstances), on grounds of being labelled as a canvassed participant et al.

But, that being said, I'm going to prune the article-sourcing, so that there are no more !votes of the like So many sources.....How can anyone even think of deleting this?!.

And, I will be further keeping a watch on the progress of all the 3 AfDs.For the time being, there's nothing to worry about, for all the !votes are standard textbook cases of dis-countable arguments.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I respect your principal, and as I said I too usually don't invite people to comment on AfDs involve me even when my own creations are nominated for deletion such as this. But lately I realised that people often throw keep !vote without providing any solid arguments and the articles resulted kept such as this one. Personally I'm a fan of the arguments made by you and @Johnpacklambert: on Pakistan related AfDs and therefore thought I let you know about these 3 canvassed AfDs and seek your genuine opinion. --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to my opinions:--

I'm a bit curious, as to why you did not tag Google Tech Mela for G11.It was clear-cut promo-spam and, I can't think of any of our most conservative sysops declining a tagging, which would have ended the hassle, a lot easily.Anyways, clear delete.

As to Amb Jogi, that's again a clear delete.

I'm still on the fence about Iqbal Jogi, given his reputation about the last master player for the instrument.I will try to dig up some sources about him, if feasible.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had not requested Google Tech Mela for the speedy deletion, probably due to the reason that it has some RS and was not unambiguous promotional. --Saqib (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was unambiguously promotional. Many sysops are not comfortable deleting articles, which is at an AfD.PingingTonyBallioni, for his take on the CSD-ability of the article. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, the de-tagger got his flag removed. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have G11’d it, but it’s at AfD now with keep !votes so not eligible anymore. You can !vote to delete on those grounds though. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Unforutnately, a convassed AfD with biased votes. Many users who voted there, here and here never participated in AfDs before. --Saqib (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that there has been definitely some off-wiki canvassing, as to the AfDs, which has brought some near-inactive contributor(s).Anyways, after some discussion with other folks, I think your notification was sufficiently neutral, to be not held as a breach of our canvassing guidelines.Thus, I've recorded my !votes.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[63] the individual responsible for recent disruptions at WTMED has posted a very detrimental comment(irrespective of April fools day) on the page( I would delete it but do not want a confrontation) since you are a administrator it would carry more weight, I would appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

someone[64] removed it, not sure if their an admins., but good enough, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'know, there constantly seem to be these invisible RfAs that I miss.. :P Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galobtter, I won't blame you at all, for the RFA of Alexander the Great was so soooper-sekreeet, that no one other than Alexander himself knew of the event......
  • In the meantime, Integer has responded to the clarion call for a administrator and (IMHO, quite rightfully) reverted the addition.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insert "Well—that escalated quickly" meme :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		The high degree of sincerity and enthusiasm that you bring to maintaining this website's editorial standards is appreciated. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@And Adoil Descended:--It's a genuine pleasure to know your evaluation of my efforts and actions.And, kindly troll someone else.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks at AFD such as calling my contributions regular nonsense. The arguments that I make are policy based even if you disagree with them. Commenting on other editors is something to be avoided at AFD as it makes it an unpleasant battleground that deters many editors from participating, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Now, kindly provide the sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi, rather than indulging in off-topic gymnastics.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For self-note:--His reply could be paraphrased as Who cares for sources? The vote is what matters the most; the sources can come later.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not the odd-one out in such an evaluation of your activities esp. in the S.E.Asian film/music scapes.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I can't find some more civil word to describe your participation in this scape, after going through this, this, this and this.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From all I have seen from you so far, I don't think a mere disagreement over a deletion request was enough to agitate you to write what you did and you did quickly revert yourself, so I won't assume you are really mad at me but maybe it's time for a nice cup of tea and some biscuits. It seems you could use it. Regards SoWhy 15:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy:Thanks for the tea:) Actually, I pretty-much disagreed with your decline but that did not even slightly affect my continuing to hold you in high esteem, as one of the sysops, with a precise understanding of the CSD policies.And, thus the immediate reversion:)Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, as Tony said, He is a lovely person, even when you are disagreeing with him.That pretty much sums up the issue:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about your recent close of "Requested move 14 March 2018" from Portal talk:Civil Rights Movement as requested by Coffee here. I've never seen a close with no closing rationale. Also, you chose the word "closing" that implies that you didn't actual close the discussion. What's going on here? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A closure takes time, esp. given the amount of bytes that everybody contributed to the discussion:)Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your and Fish and karate decision to move the portal conflict with the outcome of Portal talk:Molecular and cellular biology#Renaming this portal? Mitchumch (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be prudential to note that we didn't collaborate and/or jointly close the discussion.He just endorsed my closure.

Anyways, you're comparing apples and oranges.That RM had a lot of additional factors in addition to the general point that such bunch nominations almost always end in train-wrecks.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was an obvious consensus to keep the project name in upper-case. Its main opposer, Paine Ellsworth, changed his mind within the discussion (was that changed missed by the closers?). This move will effectively change the name of many WikiProjects, including the fraternity and sorority project, which would be fine if it had a consensus, but it does not, and, if anything, the consensus was not to move the project name which is why editors stopped discussing it after Paine Ellsworth took the side of keeping the project name upper-cased. Please read the discussion and review the WikiProject name change again, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to make a clarification that this move shall not be leveraged as a precedent in future RMs of project-pages etc. and that this closure is solely based on the individual merits of this discussion.

As to why editors stopped discussing it, IMHO, bludgeoning is a far greater factor.

As to other points, RM is not a vote and it is the weight of argument that matters.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Basically, to emphasize upon, none of the opposes failed to counter Amakuru's and Dickylon's proposed benefits for the establishment of similarity, (even slightly), other than uttering versions of project pages need not conform to rules for Article-spaces.At the end, it was about the usage-benefit, rather than about the rigid-interpretation of the policies/guidelines and there is a tangible benefit in favor of Amakuru's proposal, unlike your's, which seemed to have none.

At any case, I will urge both the sides to drop stuff which is umm........ so trivial and move to something which is more productive. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they stopped discussing it because we had reached consensus at that point about the upper cased project name. As for the FishKarate seconding of the close, there is no record from that editor's "close" listed in the page history (?) I'll strike this if I'm wrong. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's stuff for another day.Anyways, see this diff.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I'm willing to incorporate the text, as proposed above, if you wish so.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the supporters standpoint, you endorsed their arguments that a site wide policy exists that governs the naming conventions of all Portals. Is this your contention? Mitchumch (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not.That's misplacing words in my mouth esp. in light of my statement the practise of the guidelines are unclear, as to whether they apply to project-space which is visible at the RM closure.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I will emphasize that while the wordings of the guidelines are clear of the generally-exclusionary nature, they do not actively forbid it's application upon portals, if there is a beneficial reason to do so, the current practice (which largely resembles the policy, in a dynamic system like ours') is entirely unclear.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC):::::*That argument was their core argument.[reply]

• The wordings of the guidelines do not actively allow it's application upon portals, either. That's a decision for the community to decide, not a handful of editors.
• I concluded the policies the supporters presented was silent. I stated this portal followed the Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. I routinely brought to the supporters attention the absence of language in the policies they presented to support their arguments. I also repeatedly suggested to the supporters to seek community consensus on the respective policy pages as the best manner to resolve our disagreement. At no point during this entire discussion did they initiate a discussion on any policy page.
• Why didn't you instruct them to resolve the issue at policy pages?Mitchumch (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon was neutral on the project name, he did not oppose it, as you imply above. Please read the discussion again. The addition of Fish & Karate's "close endorsement" seems important, as the editor did not post on the page! As for the suggestion to drop this because you see it as trivial, please don't get personal and maybe strike the suggestions that this is a trivial manner, for in fact this may be a first in Wikipedia history that a closer has changed a project name although the project members chose the name and are defending that name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC):::In that case,:--[reply]

1)To quote someone--Any consensus achieved on project pages may be changed/overturned by a wider community discussion drawing in more participants from outside the project--You're not part of some walled garden, whose privileged members shall be accorded greater weight-age, in any community-advertised discussion.

Whilst, I cannot but ever under-emphasise the fact that you must have laborious work, for the project, I am bound by our policies to not give a damn about what the project members are chose and/or were defending.Votes shall be weighed, only in consideration of their individual merits, irrespective of camp-affiliations.

2)Apologies, if my comments on the aspects of triviality hurt you but give me one single good reason about howWikipedia or your works will be negatively affected, if the pages are moved, in accordance to my close? More importantly, how would it negatively affect our readers?!

Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It perpetuates the erroneous claim the term Civil Rights Movement is not a proper noun. Despite the fact that no other social or political movement, whether in the United States or abroad, has a WP:Common name of CRM. It is one among other misconceptions about the article topic that this WikiProject has to address.
• It also presents the name of this movement in a form/manner that is unusual in academic literature. Mitchumch (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-litigate other closed RMs at my talk.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for "one single good reason". I presented two reasons in response to your question. Also, could you respond to my question here? Mitchumch (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my previous reply. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, wait, you're not an administrator? This close and major Wikipedia decision was made by a non-administrator? Please remove your close, and the unregistered "close" by Fish&Karate, and reopen the page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to read this ANRFC thread.I presume, yes.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I assume that you have sufficient capabilities to click on a diff-link.....though, given that you were calling for another RM's closure to be reversed on another RM and utilized it as the first major argument on the latter, I won't be much surprised if my assumption is proved to be wrong.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The insults shown here are not what are under discussion. Please remove your close and reopen the discussion. If that diff link was already there before I posted about it, I apologize, but in any case Fish&Karate may not have been aware of the issues being brought up in this talk page discussion, that the project name had already reached consensus to stay the same within the discussion which is why it wasn't being argued anymore. This is a mess, and the insults do not help your closing reasoning and what you missed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)::I reposted the diff again in this discussion, w.r.t to your first query over here, pending which you re-asked the same query.So,..............~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading, I have excluded the project from the purview of the move.I mis-read D's arguments.

But, if you wish to overturn portal move, MRV is the sole way out.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's an uncommon editor who admits "misreading" (I misread often, as missing the link to Fish and Karate's comment). The portal discussion contains very good points on both sides, although I tend to agree with Mitchumch's well-detailed and researched series of evidential arguments. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, I will apologize for being too harsh, on your's asking for the diff.To err is human:) Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reversing my wikiproject move and initiate the portal moves, once I get my hands on a desktop. Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you decided to stick to your guns here... I've now requested the portal be deleted entirely. As clearly the concerns of 3-4 editors at one talk page about capitalization were somehow magically strong enough to make a "consensus". Well good luck finding someone else willing to do that tedious crap again. Clearly my work was neither appreciated nor given a shit about besides its different style of capitalization from one article. You all definitely have your priorities straight. - At least you won't have to worry about "dirtying" your hands using the page-mover flag now though, so that's a plus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, whilst I was half-tempted to straight-away revert your blatant trolling, kindly have the basic decency and courtesy to inform the RM closer, when initiating a MRV.Such minimal knowledge of policy is expected from a sysop.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Because I checked all of the policies about MRVs prior to opening one and nowhere among those pages did it state that the RM closer was to be informed prior to nor even after opening a MRV. So please, do actually check your facts next time before you try to condescend, as you so rightly put it, a sysop. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMR states Inform the closer of the discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:{{subst:move review note|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ .~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you don't want a quick trip to AN/ARBCASE, please un-delete the page, as you are blatantly short-circuiting an ongoing discussion.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I actually could delete right now if I saw fit, and it would be allowed by policy, the only reason I'm keeping it tagged is for my own personal reasons. Also, as you clearly don't know this: WP:IMR is not a policy, nor is it even a guideline. You really need to teach yourself before you keep trying to teach me. Because I'm not going to sit here and continue to explain things I know better than the back of my hand to you. So let's get three things straight real quick: 1. You are not allowed to "contest" any editor's G7 speedy deletion, nor even review it for that matter. You are not an administrator, stop trying to be one before going through RFA. 2. I am not going to waste my time with you any further. If Mitchumch or someone else does, than more power to them. But you are completely unwilling to listen to reason and have made a clear supervote with your close. 3. Just because there was a discussion about the capitalization of a title and that discussion came to an end, those facts do not invalidate the ability of a G7 deletion nor do they count as "contributions" to the content by other editors as would be required for a G7 to be invalidated. - So please, do find something better to do with your time than continue to waste ours. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee:, I'm pretty sure about one thing---that you do know many things better than me.RDing one's own block log is a glaring example, that comes to my mind, real quick.And, eh, did you forget the ITN-saga?!

As to G7, you've misread the policy.It starts with If requested in good faith.

As to supervoting, the decision at MRV will be a learning experience.

And, despite your rhetoric, I think you're pretty well-sure about the sentiments of the community about your administrative credibility, as the recent steward-election(s) have somewhat pointed to.Have a good-day:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you're unable to bring up anything other than aspersions (including some that have apparently nothing at all to do with Wikipedia itself) to defend your complete lack of knowledge regarding our policies here like WP:SPEEDY before trying to "school" an administrator about them, and it's also unfortunate that you thought your rash and ridiculous threat to take me to ARBCOM or AN for a completely within policy action was somehow a wise idea. But, since you thought it necessary to bring up myself, I'll simply state that I have never had any qualms or concerns with the brief RD'ing of my block log being known about (done for reasons that were explained to the appropriate authority as stated: ArbCom), but it is actually no business of yours (ArbCom doesn't happen to have you as a member of its mailing list, seeing as you have no business overseeing other editor's actions). So I'd advise you to not talk so certainly about things you know so little about. As to my other actions on the site, I have addressed them as fully as I feel necessary. All administrators get accused of being WP:ROUGE, that's why we made the page over 12 years ago: your attempts to disparage an administrator's voice entirely by pointing out singular errors is a very old tactic at attempting to nullify the logical arguments and points being made by the "rouge admin". If you don't appreciate looking like a fool when you completely misinterpret policy (note that the G7s have been completed by an administrator other than myself), then stop trying to puff out your chest so much and perhaps give collaboration and a full reading of our policies a try. Then, before trying to school anyone else on anything at all, perhaps try to actually act like a coworker or at the very least a colleague, and stop trying to score points in some sort of strangely drawn out, yet almost entirely unwatched, internet contest of argumentation. - Your close was wrong, and you should have most certainly left it to someone with less of a very clear chip on their shoulder towards me. Your words here make your close look worse than a supervote, in fact it looks more like an attempt to deliberately close the discussion (with blatantly no clear consensus) in a way that would be opposing to a particular editor's opinion (mine). That my colleague is not how coworkers act, that's how people with a clear grudge act. I suggest you leave this be, lest you make it any more obvious that you did not close this in good faith at all (seeing you apparently follow my administrative work so much, and seeing as I am the sole editor and creator of the [now deleted] portal). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERPARENT —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the point you made here abundantly clear on your close. Otherwise, editors will draw very different conclusions from unstated assertions than the one you made on this talk page. Mitchumch (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email - TNT^❤ 08:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say some crap like this again, and I will be in direct contact with ArbCom. Is your goal simply to antagonize me? I'd really like to know, because it's been a long time since you've done a single thing to help me in any fashion on this site. Or to even listen to my concerns for that matter. I would like an answer, in the same manner you do when you ask questions of admins. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see this. Fish+Karate 10:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone might consider calming down a bit, see that all have probably acted in good faith, and that emotions run high every 50 years or so on the dates of Dr. King's death. Some editors care about this issue to a high degree, so I'd ask that everyone back off a bit, that nobody take anybody else to some kind of WikiCourt, and that everyone here actually consider joining the WikiProject which could use a few dozen members to make Wikipedia's Civil Rights Movement collection the equal to none in quality and accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echoed to everyone involved - the frustration Wikipedia can cause is very rarely worth it. Let's either work on something else for a bit, or take 5 and go outside and enjoy the sun/rain/other atmospheric condition 💚 - TNT^'❤ 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to F&K, Randy and TNT:) Enough of this dramah...... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee , you are banned from my talk-page, until your near infinite ignorance and bullying recedes and/or you lose your self-perceived immunity to criticism. Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps don't ping me then. At any rate, I'm fine with a mutual IBAN. You've done little but continuously cast aspersions about me for months, almost every time I interact with you or you come near an area I work in. So yes, if you stop pinging me, and no longer follow me around the site trying to cast aspersions to tarnish my name, I will abide by your proposed mutual interaction ban. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are already tarnished are seldom worth to be more tended to.... At any case, as your (now-deleted) hitlist shew, you find some pleasure in assuming that there are hordes of folks, out over here, with the sole long-term aim to cast aspersions about you and your deeds etc. and I will merrily let you live with that. But, you would do well to believe that I've got far better things to do than follow you around the site.

Lastly, it may be noted that this mutual IBan only extends to each other's t/p and I reserve my right to indulge in any discussion starter by you or involving you, in some other venue, as much as you have the same rights as to any involving me. Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki-extensions-PageTriage?files=1 ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here.~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at B-8eight Zascha Moktan needed AFD ! 27.34.20.152 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:) I will take a look. It's ought to be very problematic for your client, if other non-deserving folks get their own article, while he doesn't.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For your kind info i am not a client. I am just reminding you cause you’re doing personal attacks so. I though that so i am reminding you the unusual articles. 27.34.20.152 (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Godric, Please file an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456. Khasokhas Weekly shows at least one named sock, I think there might be more if you go through the trail. I've had to delete a copyvio image here. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like some useful edits got caught up, apologies! GiantSnowman 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. And no you don't, I'll self-revert. GiantSnowman 14:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:--Apologies, if I was snarky. I know of a script that can mass-rollback edits on a particular-visible-page at contributions history, which makes the job quite easier given that you customise the contribs-page to fit a part. type of edit to part. project-spaces over a part. span.Will let you know, if I rediscover it:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facto Post – Issue 11 – 9 April 2018 The 100 Skins of the Onion Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that. Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron. Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF. From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart. Links Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus, CWTS blogpost 17 January 2018, Nees Jan van Eck, Ludo Waltman, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto Citations with identifiers in Wikipedia, figshare dataset Making women more visible online—with Wikidata tools!, Wikimedia blogpost 29 March 2018 by Sandra Fauconnier Village pump discussion, Turn on mapframe? We’re ready if you are reaches conclusions The Power of the Wikimedia Movement beyond Wikimedia, Forbes 28 March 2018, Michael Bernick Tracing stolen bitcoin, blogpost 26 March 2018 by Ross J. Anderson To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric, Can you please have a look at the list of articles created by Randhirreddy (talk · contribs). I went over some of their articles and it seems to be non-notable forks of existing article and at times articles about government schemes which do not meet WP:GNG. I have marked some of them for merge and others for deletion. I wanted your opinion whether my assessment of the situation was correct. Here are some articles SHE Teams, Vadi Biyyam, NSG hub, Hyderabad, Telangana Sheep Distribution scheme, Telangana State Health Profile. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at the note I left on this ticket? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIR, there was a conversation on this issue, through another ticket, which caused me to lock this.I will be checking for the same:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no need to use email here, best to have it in the open. I saw that the AfD was in "limbo", having never been closed with a definitive answer, and felt it was better if it was re-opened so that it could continue to its natural end. Sorry about using rollback, I clicked that as the easiest way to return it to its pre-close state, it certainly wasn't a comment on your previous closure. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: User:Arif80s despite being topic banned contributing to this AfD. --Saqib (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, warned, if they do it again there will be a block. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titodutta (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Now I could need some help assessing notability. I came across Dr Anurag Agarwal in CAT:CSD and there seem a lot of hits for this name but I can't really assess the Indian sources to determine whether they are all about this subject. So I'd be grateful if you could have a look. Feel free to send it to AFD if you believe that notability is lacking. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy:-Greetings:) I ran a search about the person in vernacular-local-media-sources but failed to drag up anything other than a bunch of Hindi PR-stuff.I would also note that none of the awards are remotely notable.Whilst, your decline was good-enough (It was definitely not A7, maybe G11...), I guess that the AFD will progress to an inevitability.And feel free to ask me to have a look about other Indian subjects, in future, as you may wish:)Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen CAT:CSD this morning? Good grief, there's a lot of speedies on Indian / Pakistani biographies over there, and I haven't got the faintest idea what to do with half of them. I need some help. I'm sure there's a reason I haven't asked you before (possibly something dramah-related) but I can't think what. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:-Hi Ritchie, I went through the CSD cats and managed to find just one to decline.I'm afraid that all the tagged articles (barring Nahas Mala, which could be deleted or declined and BLPPRODDED)Eh, I missed this AFD.ought to be deleted.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, on a very-related note, thank you for your confidence in my activities.And, I think that the crux of this thread could be shifted to email-discussions.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note, I don't think someone with precisely zero article-creation(s), will be subject to a kind treatment at the venue!~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think starting a poll on ORCP might be the best bet. The basic AfD / CSD stats are great, and your knowledge of policy is fine, I think it's the general snark (see clash with Coffee above), a tendency to want to delete content instead of creating it (which is not a problem if done correctly, but may ruffle feathers) and regular visits to ANI may stick a spanner in the works. All that said, Indian biographies turn up all the time at NPP (as you've probably noticed) so we could really do with some more admins around that area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Go ahead Godric. I believe you would make a great admin. I never commented or participated in RfAs but I'm willing to support your nomination because you are one of the many outstanding, especially in AfDs space. --Saqib (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kudpung's current advice#last-?six-words-of, at ORCP apply perfectly. There are two good reasons for this, and I would tell you what they were—but that would mean treating you as an editor with whom I had never previously interacted. All the best, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it seems you have edited/removed some sections from articles Malabar Cements Limited and the section ' MCL, is the only Portland cement manufacturer in Kerala ', ' Logistic Hub ' you have edited was provided by with valid reference. But you have removed by claiming by simply saying SPAM. In case of Kochi Metro Rail Limited company.,Kochi Metro as notable metro services the section ' Board of Directors ' was added as the starting directors of company. I don't have an idea whether it is relevant, but the section ' Solar Energy ' to be. It includes the method adopted by company to use the energy to run the services. I think the topic must be relevant to the subject. It may be i have no experience with writing up articles about company in en.wiki. As a experienced editor you could have help in improving the article, instead of just deleting the section.

Currently am developing articles to improve the topic converges in WikiProject Kerala and developing missing article from Public sector undertakings in Kerala. I seek your suggestions and help for the development of above articles.--Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jinoytommanjaly:--Sorry, a trivial coverage in the form of a news-entry about KMRL's use of solar energy is hardly encyclopedic-ally notable, (esp. given it's abundance, now-a-days).I also don't see any reason why a list of BOD fits into an encyclopedic entry.But, if you diasgree see dispute resolution methods.Best,

As to removal of Logistics Section, see why we aren't a news-stand.The Scribd document is unreliable (no author, public-uploaded et al).

And, I'm very willing to help you in your goals.If you need any help, ping me or drop a message at my t/p.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Wishing you a belated happy new year
	Wishing you a belated new year with a traditional platter consisting of rice, mangoes and illish macher jhol(from what I can make out). May you have a prosperous 1425. Keep on rocking !  — FR+ 11:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Force Radical:--Many thanks:) Wishing you a heavily-belated শুভ নববর্ষ.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belated happy birthday. --Titodutta (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} If am done article editing in the language malayalam, what will I do for submitting it in the contest??? Please help me ഐഷ (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ഐഷ, once you have created any topic or expanded any topic from this list of topics, conforming to the project rules, kindly submit it for review by clicking on this link and follow the prompts, after hitting the big blue colored submit button, located at the top-right corner of the page.Happy editing! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, requesting updation for Otello Corporation. I had updated the article to fix WP:COAT in Opera Software but looks like it was rv due to previous discussions. The companies are distinct entities now that Opera Software has been sold off and I had introduced and referenced everything clearly. Can you please review the change? Thanks. (Also: User talk:Onel5969#Otello Corporation) Gotitbro (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you still editing Asaram ? I would like to make some changes, so wanted to make sure we dont conflict. DBigXray 11:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:--Thanks for the tea:) I'm not editing it currently and feel free to edit and improve the article. My redesign comment at the t/p referred to my edits made at the article on 11 and 12 April, 2018.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work, The IPs are somewhat justified, the summary needs improvement. --DBigXray 11:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is far, far too long: please remember that probably more than half internet accesses are now from tiny hand-held devices. I have taken the liberty of editing your user page - feel free to revert it. You will see in User talk:RHaworth#Article Removal a user saying "I thought it was how he suggested to get in contact with him". Admittedly they did no read your warning "you'll not be replied to". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth:--I will note that I haven't recieved any mail from the user.Anyways, thanks for the reminder to archive my t/p:) Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

Could I ask you to assist with looking at Indira Gandhi Balika College, Rajesultanpur. This article was created by an editor with a history of less than stellar article creation. Articles he has created in the past have been copied and pasted from existing articles without changing the content or references. And in some cases, the very existence of the subject is in doubt. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkiya PG College, Rajesultanpur. I believe that the Indira Gandhi Balika College has a similar issue. I've used Google translate look at the sourcing provided and the references appear to be for other schools. I understand that machine translation isn't always accurate so if you could have a look, it would be appreciated. I've searched as best I can, and I am unable to verify that this school exists. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in a while:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq:--Hmm..This's hoax-stuff.Firstly, I've removed all the sources which don't come close to anywhere mentioning the subject. The lone remaining source mention इंदिरा बालिका विद्यालय, राजेसुल्तानपुर which transliterates to Indira Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Rajesultanpur and translates to Indira Gandhi Girl's School, Rajesultanpur. If there actually existed a college of the same pattern of name, it ought to have the word Mahavidyalaya i.e. महाविद्यालय in lieu of Vidyalaya i.e. विद्यालय.I've checked UP Education Board's site and there doesn't exist any college of the same name.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the pattern of contributions of the creator, I don't believe he is hoaxing. In all eventualities, there ought to exist a private college, in a shackled building, at some fringe location, of the same name but sourcing it is going to be next-to-impossible.UP is a state, where at certain locations, you can come across functional equivalents of degree-mill-colleges every other apartment in a street. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this. I will likely nominate the article for deletion. Although this might not be a hoax per se, verifiability is a huge issue. And just to be clear, the article creator has made deliberate false information before. They've uploaded images purporting to be of Rajesultanpur, but were in fact a stock photo image of Vijayawada, and an image purporting to be a sunset in Rajsultanpur but was in fact a photoshopped colour adjustment of a picture of Lake Michigan. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

I have been watching some pages and am extremely concerned that there is large-scale tag-teaming and gaming going on to circumvent WP:NOCON. There's two articles where this behaviour is very suspicious with the same characters and same edit war tactics to retain the non-consensus revisions before obtaining page protections. Until now I have not been active on these articles but a concerned observer. Yesterday, starting at 06:05 this started on History of Gilgit Baltistan, resulting in a page protection (fortuitously) and it is continuing today with the same characters on Princely state where there is a major ongoing dispute on the talkpage. The page was quite stable until 30 April when a sleeper account (which has disappeared since!) turned up to do a revert of a longstanding edit made on the 5th of April (explained then, with no forthcoming objection until 30 April/1 May) and since then there is an ongoing edit war with the seeming intent to obtain a false WP:STATUSQUO while talkpage discussion is still going. Also transcluding this notification to other administrators. Hopefully you can settle it. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem:--Same age-old boring stuff, same faces and roughly same geo-IPs on usual sides, with hands firmly set on the undo button.... Nothing but re-inforces my belief of these areas being one of the most toxic and hostile editing areas over en.wiki.

Overall, I don't give a flying fuck as to whether the wrong version was protected and the protection ought to concentrate the efforts on the talk-page.On a side-note, determining the status-quo version isn't a very clear cut task and we have to be aware of the first-mover advantage in relatively less-watched articles et al.

At any case, that's an interesting discussion and I will probably join as a participant.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to your participation. Best of luck! JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Winged Blades of Godric I agree with JospehusOfJerusalem, actually these additions by Kautilya3 without obtaining consensus started the current dispute with which NadirAli disagreed and reverted those additions and I believe he was right in doing so.

So, can I kindly request you to please restore the true WP:STATUSQUO versions as an admin which was this. Looking forward to your participation in discussion as well, your voice will definitely help achieve consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]