Hi Winged Blades of Godric, could you revisit your close at Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory? I take issue with the claim that "arguments raised by the opposers seem much more grounded in facts and policies"; in reality, virtually all discussion of policy was by supporters; few if any of the opposers discussed policy at all. Additionally, before you closed there was a response to one of my comments (that messed up the formatting of my comment) and I'd like a chance to respond. Thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain:---Sorry, but I just don't see how the disc. could essentially lead to some diff. outcome.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, contrary to your closing statement, only the supporters invoked policy arguments, and second, the discussion was ongoing, as someone had just replied to one of my comments, and messed up my comment's formatting. I would appreciate the opportunity to remedy that. Thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain:---I will be posting a detailed analysis soon(prob. in my very next edit).Please keep a watch.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and assuming you don't mind, I'm going to fix the formatting on my post that said other editor messed up just before you closed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're absolutely at ease to do so!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain:---Did the necessary changes!How do you feel?Winged Blades ^Godric 05:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis of !votes and their counter-reasonings(if any)...

0)The nom's editing tendencies, legitimate concerns of socking---all leads to a dark spot while evaluating on his/her opinions. I have given much less weightage to the opinions raised by him/her. 1)Seraphim voted to move. Policy-wise and rationale-wise--hazy. 2)M shabazz opposed. Minus the rhetoric--well grounded in rationale .Cites a policy---but that is a generalised one and could be lapped up by different people in diff. manners. The subsequent opinions are far from even tangentially.related to our topic! 3)--DW's comment was somewhat off-topic--at an immedite glance.But it holds relevance to our concerned title change. Whilst not grounded in policies, the rationale seems to be good enough! 4)&5)&7)&8)--Rockypedia's, Zack's, AusLondoner's and Foridden Rocky's arguments--drawing analogies and pointing out that there's no such thing as a "Zionist Occupation Government" etc. seems solid enough. Quite good! 6))&9)---GAB's and Rexxs's arguments are largely based on DW's argument whilst drawing more reasons from the last teraplet of votes. Good enough! 10)&11)---Yours's and Amakuru's votes are largely based on number of hits on Google which likely corresponds to a more prevalent use in media etc.But the counter argument raised was very good. If I had seen some evidences ---that it's used in the form of the move-target in a multitude of WP:RS; that would have been a very close-call.

From all the above points and that the discussion run for over a fortnight, I am unable to change the essence of my closure.But will be surely editing the closure statement.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate this in depth analysis. I'm satisfied with your closing rationale. I do have to say that the move target is in use in very many reliable sources, and the current title is used rarely if ever. That is what I would have clarified in Rockypedia's response (I may add something about it anyway, as it appears that their altering of my edit is confusing others as to who's saying what). But I certainly appreciate your willingness to discuss this and explain your rationale in depth.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the formatting; I've left a brief note so that others coming in from the RFA are clear. Additionally, here is what I was planning to respond with:

Rockypedia's formatting errors and pointless rudeness aside, their response is incorrect. The name "Zionist Occupation Government" returned 3,850 Google Books hits, compared to only 604 for "Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory", virtually all of which appear to be false hits not actually used in the listed books. Even if every hit for "Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory" appears in a search for "Zionist Conspiracy Theory", the latter is still many times and thousands of hits more common - ie, there are many more times the sources using the short form than the long form. Contrary to Rockypedia's claims, we certainly do use Google Books searches in move discussions, per the WP:COMMONNAME policy and the WP:Search engine test. Moreover, the phrase is used in reliable sources such as these:[1][2][3][4][5][6]. I am unable to find even a single reliable source that uses the phrase "Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory", even though all reliable sources agree that the subject is a fake, antisemitic fringe theory.

To their other point, as I said, a small minority of articles on conspiracy theories do include the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their titles; this usually happens when it's a descriptive title for a subject that has no common name, such as White genocide conspiracy theory or Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, or when it's needed for disambiguation from another article of the name, such as New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Neither is the case here, as "Zionist Occupation Government" is what reliable sources use when discussing this topic, and that phrase refers to nothing else of the name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Federation Baseball shouldnt have closed. It should be relisted. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran:--Err. I think the closure was correct.Sources 3,4,8,10,11 &12 are suffcient.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are just passing references. No source mentions the body has done anything notable. In all these references, that body is just a tag-along. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I am trying to comply and understand Wiki. The Eric Leach page was on Wiki for many years and seems someone made a lot of changes as of last May to August. Perhaps these changes affected the redirect back in August 2016? I am trying to revert it back to an older approved version and to ensure accuracy. You mentioned self-promotion. Do you mean because there was a link to The Base Caddy? I removed that now. And, my intent to include was for citation. Thank you for your help in understanding these things and any continued help is appreciated.

thetruthtoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthtoo (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Thetruthtoo (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a registered company. https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/KERALA-RAIL-DEVELOPMENT-CORPORATION-LIMITED/U63030KL2017SGC047699

--naveenpf (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Naveenpf:--The guidelines for inclusion on en.wiki hardly state that the company be registered.See WP:NCOMPANY.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has enough notability. there are enough articles from The Hindu, TOI, Indian Express. There are many articles in Malayalam media too. I dont know what else is required. --naveenpf (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Naveenpf:--Sorry,I don't see anything beyond--The company is formed--in the reports.And the subject fails to clinch WP:GNG, in my opinion.It's best to wait for a span of time until it is involved in any project and/or otherwise, is back in media coverage.Government bodies etc. are formed regularly and I have seen numerous examples which have garnered coverage during it's formation but later vanished into the oblivion.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article. I would like to understand the tag you put on it, about needing improvements to "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling". Can you give me some indication of where improvement is needed? --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it was just me.Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:--Sometime back, when his name cropped up at a noticeboard(on mass creation of BLPs with little/false refs)---I read that he had been a somewhat regular party at the adminboards!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trusting him as knowing more about AfC than I.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if you take a look through S.T's work at AFC on a per se basis, that is and quite excellent.But if you zoom back and look at the entirety, certain things seem to be not in their place and as it had been found, often the proportion of wrongs overshadow the proportion of rights!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently nominated User:FFA P-16/workpage19 for speedy deletion and as far as I can see that page was removed. The disputed content however is moved to User:FFA P-16/workpage20 ([7]). The rest of his workpages are also a collection of copies of removed articles: User:FFA P-16/workpagenavi The Banner talk 12:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is impossible to discuss with FFA-P-16. If someone has a different opinion, that someone is being offended as being not only a troll but a "malicious" troll [8]. This is why I won't waste discussion time. In a lot of articles he is acting not for good of Wikipedia: For simply personal reasons he replaces a sentence like "From 2000 to 2002 today's Divisional general Claude Meier was commander of Fliegerstaffel 17". by his phrase "From 2000 to 2002 was, the of today 's Divisional general, Claude Meier commander of the Fliegerstaffel 17." (see this edit [9]) (...why additionally an aircraft is being unlinked, nobody knows...). And yes: The fact, that he builds his own "Counter-Wikipedia" by maintaining deleted articles should be stopped. If you read what he writes on his userpage (declaring everybody else is wrong) you know, he is not willing to follow the rules of Wikipedia.--185.145.111.250 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Pages are not promotions!Creating pages about diffrend companys is not promotion.. there are a lot of pages on wikipedia about companys. Moreover it is definitiv not PR because they are not in the "open" part of wikipedia, but in my workpages. This are pages I need more (interpendent)sources, therfore they are in the "workroom", the can stay in my workpages as long as needet..Peleas stop playing around in MY workpages! FFA P-16 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your words about Therapeutice Specialis ad Febres Periodicas Perniciosas. It feels good to have done something useful :) Wikisanchez (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have deleted an article on Don Bosco Academy, Patna. It is a major educational Institution in Patna, Bihar, India. I think it deserves a page on Wikipedia. There are number of news articles for this Institution. There are more than 100,000 search results on Google for this and more than 600 News search results for this school. Do you think this can be added back? What needs to be done for this? Ananyapratinav (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananyapratinav::--Can you please use a blue-link.I am unable to find the page.There is no corresponding entry in the deletion log too!Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: - Here is the link for the page Don Bosco Academy. The Page redirects to Patna. A number of pages for Schools in Patna have been redirected to Patna by you. Please check this. Some of these articles should not have been removed and redirected. An article for St. Michael's High School was also deleted. That school is more than 150 years old.

Link for Don Bosco Academy - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Bosco_Academy&redirect=no (check View history tab). Link for St. Michael's High School - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Michael%27s_High_School,_Patna&redirect=no (check View history tab) Ananyapratinav (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for DBA,Patna.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for St. Michael's.Am not convinced.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: - Thanks for reviewing Don Bosco Academy. Will it help if I create a better article for St. Michael's Patna and take it from there? Please let me know. Ananyapratinav (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananyapratinav:Obviously,that's applicable for whatever I redirected on the entire lot.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: - Thanks! Ananyapratinav (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:DRN/VA. (This message is being only sent to active contributors of the DRN. Other comments are also welcome though) Yashovardhan (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WBG did you have a look? Yashovardhan (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Winged Blades ^Godric 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what you saw in Icewhiz's argument (and you didn't say what). The argument has no sources at all. In my own !vote, I had already anticipated the arguments, and I gave four sources to counter them. Demolition of houses is not at all the same as a traffic stop. The former is expressly forbidden under international law (unless expressly for a military purpose), as the sources I gave said. Even if we do a raw vote count, I see 8-4 in favour of "No". What did you find in the argument that was so persuasive that you thought it overrode the "Yes" arguments? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian:-- DoneOops! I came back after a span of over 2 hours and made a mess of a close.That's why one reads threads of a single discussion at a single span!Broken chains of thoughts...!!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. At the time I was dealing with what is (probably) a very obvious sock to which no reasonable amount of investigation seems to have been undertaken despite me raising it to the relevant noticeboards with relevant detail of historic grammar / pattern of behaviour. The probable likelihood of astro-turfing was high (the discussion was live on 8chan), and the end user had already canvassed established contributer to a similar forum. User, as you can see from your own Talk page, continues here and on other articles to push POV (including rush to RFC to deal with those that oppose their contributions) Thank you for your time in any case, I felt you needed a summary of my motives. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh I rest my case. Koncorde (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the Pump you are now an inexperienced editor.

At the Help Desk it isn't much better

Even so far as going to another users talk page who he believes has an issue with you to try and overturn your decision (which he immediately deleted upon discovering your refactoring of the RFC).

You are being led up the garden path Godric. Koncorde (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde:--As such,I would have stuck to my first closure, but two of the votes, being discounted messed it up.Any-way,I would like to give you two pieces of advice--1)Never ever canvass; however attractive it may seem! 2)Don't indulge into end-less discussions.One counter-argument is an utility, two is a luxury but more than that is wasteful(Esp, when both the parties are actively sticking to their own points and no compromise is visible.)Finally, status-quo means that technically, the content remains excluded--since the onus of burden is on the one vouching for the content to be included.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to his approaching different diff. venues, let him!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you performed an actual count instead of, as it appears, arbitrarily throwing over the result to favour an offsite campaign? I so I would very much like to hear your methodology on this and know of my arguments were amongst the ones discarded. Artw (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw:---The fact that you participated inthe RFC after this edit and then today undid my closure and self-closed the RFC shows how afar you are from the customary practises and norms followed here.Also, you may have the pleasure of being informed that your argument and !vote was entirely discarded.Ṭhanks!And hey, can you clarify off-site please?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that - I have to admit that I was a little shocked at your poor jugment, and did not consider your closure valid. In future would you do me the favour of letting me know when you've decided to disregard my opinion in an RFC on arbitrary grounds? Also would you mind doing the same for everyone else whose votes you've dropped on the floor, cheers. Artw (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw and Koncorde:--If you can show me any user/IP canvassing(save Artw and Wordsmith)--I'm willing to re-ammend my closure.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have none,I will not indulge in anything, even tangentially related to this RFC.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'm not going to be relying on you to "indulge" anything, as this conversation clearly needs to take place elsewhere and have more people involved. Artw (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add about the RFC itself. My arguments before and after stand by themselves. Unfortunately the 8chan article is not archived, but if you were to look at the posts in response to the RFC, including the rather disgusting things posted to Mark Bernstein and myself, a pattern may be obvious. Koncorde (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, there is still a record. [10] To clarify, I am not saying the IP coordinated, but that there are obvious and immediate reactions conveniently close to the 8chan article because certain editors are involved / associated with 8chan in some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koncorde:--Sorry but I am just unable to deduce any canvassing or off-thread collusion from the single thread that appeared.Also I am not one whose job is to link off-wiki activities with on-wiki activities.Yeah may-be some party supporting the stance was definitely involved but how do I make sure that it wasn't you who posted the thread?--to later use it as an evidence.I am not accusing you but just saying--that co-rrelating of off-wiki activities, in my limited roles and power is next to impossible. Winged Blades ^Godric 12:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is asking you to. I am providing context. Draw what conclusions, or absence of conclusions from it you wish. Koncorde (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw:-Best of wishes for the venture at WP:AN.(At least that's where I expect you to land up!).But prob. I will be not available until day after morrow. Winged Blades ^Godric 17:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:--So that will be me,you and Tazerdadog.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Artw (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Template:Dated is relisted for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated at least one week ago. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reel your boy in over at WP:Teahouse. Artw (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw::-It may be very prudential to tell you that I'm not at all interested in any matter/issue concerned with/surrounding the activities of the IP.(except the AN thread.)And I certainly don't appreciate the tone--your boy.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem quite friendly with them and have stepped in to help their endeavors reeatedly now. But if you feel no culpability that's your call, I guess. Artw (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw::-Well, another post like this and you will be landing up at some noticeboard.Cheerio!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You reverted my replacement of the Three Virtues of a Programmer apparently without reading my explanation in the edit log comment. And then you apparently didn't check the results of your revert. In either case you would have discovered that the redirect points to a section of the article that was removed -- a broken link. The article Larry Wall is about the programmer and author, and so other editors don't feel that important memes that he pioneered should be contained within his biography, only mentioned. But they can't be mentioned if the "mention" is reverted to a redirect, creating the very circular redirect you claimed you were avoiding.

Next time you have a notability issue, how about discussing it on the talk page there, before you get so "BOLD" that you avoid "CONSENSUS"? I'm going to revert your revert, and start a discussion at the appropriate location, instead of here on your talk page. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 12:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliyahu S::--Well, I am afraid that you so blatantly misread WP:CIRCULAR.This revision deemed the paragraph to be so non-encycloepadic that the editor removed it even from the biography of the subject! You strangely took this opportunity to write a stand-alone page on the topic which was reverted by me and then again by Onel5969(post you reversion of my edit.)I am afraid the consensus supports my actions and could not be supposedly altered by keeping the Caps-Lock ON.Also,WP:INDY may count as a handy read.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping... Yes, I concur that there is nothing to show the notability of that particular subject. However, as a matter of housekeeping, the redirect should simply be to the article, since no section exists. I've corrected that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godric, I hope you know you are one of my favourite editors, but this feels a bit like taunting to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:--On second thoughts-Yes! And thanks for the compliment!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Winged Blades of Godric. On the Talk-Page of Husan there is a WP:RfC. Feel free to respond.Davidbena (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena::--If my memory serves me well, I can't faintly recollect any interaction either about the topic or with you. Any definite reasons about why you posted this? Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You were the person who gladly came to my assistance when I once requested a Request for Comment in the article, Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. Your post to me can still be seen on my Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! My damn memory! But I'm unsure as to whether I will be of any help.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you like. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diptanshu 💬 06:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You deleted Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo). However, many people cast their votes to delete this article right after its creation, when the article was very much still incomplete. I've created a draft article about the sculpture at Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. I'd like for the draft to be moved into the main space, but Wikipedia:Deletion review requires me to seek your thoughts first. Do you have any specific concerns or thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:-- I am not sure as to the exact formalities. Pinging Primefac for clarification on how to proceed in these cases. Winged Blades ^Godric 03:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively,DRV is used to challenge a close but it doesn't seem to be the case here. Winged Blades ^Godric 03:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am unable to move Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo to Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo, so do I submit a technical request move? I'm not sure how else to get the draft into the main space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, the simplest thing would be to request a technical move, since the existing redirect will have to be deleted in order to move the page. If that's declined, then you can either a) submit it for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, or b) go to DRV to get the draft approved. I think option (a) is less hassle overall, though it might take a bit longer, so I'll leave that part up to you (of course, if the move request is accepted, the rest is moot). Primefac (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:  Done Here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Winged Blades of Godric! (raddest username there). Looks like you intended to close Talk:Paris Agreement#Proposed merge with United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement but got distracted? No rush, just a friendly notice. I can't close it because I'm involved. — JFG ^talk 04:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG:-- Done--Heartfelt thanks! I entirely forgot about the close!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU for the energy you volunteer to properly close discussions that may be arduous to assess. — JFG ^talk 10:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put three sources for the article.Powerfox (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Powerfox::--Sorry, but none of them pass WP:RS.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC

So i give so many from me,I give more than tho sources on every article I work for free I love to do it and all of my work is go to the trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Powerfox (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

|@Powerfox:--We just don't need sources, we need reliable independent ones.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sometimes i put for sources book Is it rigth?Powerfox (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Powerfox::--Yeah, there's no problem with it.But obviously, the quality of the source matters!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Can you check is it better the artickle nowрI will try to get better and the other articles?and the pictures are realPowerfox (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your action here [11]. Sagecandor (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of List of Home Truly episodes as an unambiguous copyright infringement under CSD G12. That criterion did not apply because first, this is on its face a backwards copyvio (the external site copied from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around) which is made conclusive by the fact that it was published on March 6, 2017, post-dating this content. Second, even if this was a copyvio, G12 is not applicable where there's a prior version to revert to, which is true here. If the content you looked at was a copyvio, instead of placing G12, the complete procedure I suggest would be to 1) revert to an untainted prior version, or remove the infringing edits manually depending on circumstances; 2) note in your edit summary when you did so the source of the infringement; 3) ask an administrator to revision delete the tainted portion of history using {{Copyvio-revdel}}; 4) warn the user who placed it using {{nothanks}} or {{uw-copyright-new}}; and finally 5) place {{cclean}} on the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am a bit concerned that the balance of the text is a copyvo, but just not from the source it was flagged from. I looked but did not find it. But the fact the user has been warned about copying in the past, coupled with certain hallmarks in the draft (e.g., the unblemished, large scale text added in chunks...) gives me pause.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a p good enough point you raise.But still, I'm suspecting something to be amiss!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You were involved in the previous discussion about cross-wiki search results, so I invite you to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal here? ~Kvng (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your message! Yeah, I un-reviewed it because the this BLP article needs more sources tag was eminently necessary.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the tag. It is not a problem to review an article that has tags. In fact adding a tag with the tool automatically marks it as reviewed. The article is reasonably verifiable. If it was uncited, that would be a reason to delete. We don't leave articles unreviewed just because they have issues that require improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Winged Blades Godric This is in regard to the Draft:Samved School (2), I have resubmitted it. As per our last discussion on March 30th 2017, I understand, the references had to be reviewed and, changed, I have done some changes. Now is it ok to be added in the main article space, so that i can include, the page under the page "list of schools in banglore" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Bangalore) under WIKI. Please advice. - Regards poojnm1985

Hey again, Godric. I pinged you about me relisting the discussion. I just am re-notifying you, just in case. Also, the discussion was moved into Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy, and then someone else created Question #8. Best, George Ho (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know why you relisted this. Quite apart from the fact that I was one of the voters, there s a clear consensus to delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung:--I relisted the AFD because it was more or less a statistical tie (even discounting one or two(??) argument(s)!).May-be delete would have been a better call but we can probably afford a week(esp. given that it was brought from a DRV despite a near-unanimous consensus to delete!).Anyway if you still feel I have faulted, I wouldn't mind you reverting me.Thanks!

@Kudpung::--Since, pings don't work without sig!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a lot of closers forget is that the nomination already counts as 1 delete vote. For example, if an AfD remains completely uncommented/uncontested after a week, like a PROD it can be closed as delete. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]