User talk:Winged Blades of Godric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Contents

Moving the article 'Kumar Swami' to draft[edit]

I see that you have moved the article Kumar Swami to draft.

I am not being paid for anything on Wikipedia. My discussion with Harshil got heated because he was trying to dictate the tone of the article without discussing any details. I wrote this article passionately since it's my first article on Wikipedia. But to be clear once again, I have no association with the subject of the article. I already told in my discussion that I am ready to improve the article if someone guides me to. I will still improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Regarding the reliability of sources, why do you think that sources are not reliable ? They are from well reputed newspapers and official government websites. I would appreciate if you will guide me which references are unreliable in your view.

What else this draft needs in order to be able to be included in article space ??

I have seen many articles on Wikipedia which are much shorter than mine, have much less references and have lesser quality of references than the ones I have used.

I guess the reason that you have moved the article to draft is because of my heated discussion with Harshil, for which I have already apologized.

I find it unfair that such a well researched article which was earlier accepted has now been moved to draft.

Please reconsider your decision of reverting the article to draft. The references are indeed reliable and independent. I request you to again have a thorough look. I will keep working on improving the quality of the content but I feel it should be in the article space.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

NPP Inactivity[edit]

Did you end up fixing ICPH's querry with the updated syntax? I fixed a query once before but it's not my strength and if you've already done it all the better. I would like to go through and actually do the removal of anyone who has been inactive on Wikipedia a year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, In June Xaosflux removed a few, so he knows the regex to update the list Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: we regularly remove "special groups" that have 12 month complete inactivity, as of right now the only users that are in the "patroller" group exceeding 12 months of editing activity are secondary accounts of admins. Is that what you are looking in to? — xaosflux Talk 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, it was. Good to know that this already happens without any help from me. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Akiwo Arakawa (September 24)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Missvain (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Missvain:-That's a poor decline; are you aware of WP:NACADEMIC? I would have moved that to main-space myself, if I did not have a COI.
Hyperbolick, thanks for your work! WBGconverse 14:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Lol, nothing beats waking up and having something called "poor" you did on Wikipedia...first for everything in 14 years. And they wonder why newbies don't stick around. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Missvain: I'm sorry, if that was the first message you saw today:-( On an aside, as someone who has been here for over 4 years with about 40,000 edits, me thinks that rejecting policy-compliant articles from newbies also affect editor-retention, negatively. WBGconverse 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

section review[edit]

Hope you are doing well. Please can you review this section? It seems to have a different meaning. Previously it was  [[1]]. Now it is [[2]]. It seems like the very edits based on your discussion here [[3]] are reverted. Thanks.

WP:BLP applies even to non biographies if the article talks about actions by people still living-- or allegations against them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

" legal case against Wikimedia"[edit]

I don't doubt it. After my own harrowing, I'm much more sensitive to this than before. Of course, as I learned watching Law and Order, the best way to avoid an accusation of impropriety is to avoid the appearance there of. So I will almost always advocate for the removal of unsavory content when it is challenged.-- Deepfriedokra 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy note[edit]

I have refactored my support comment that you refer to in Fram's RfA. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

I'm sorry to see that you decided to edit-war on Nadja Malacrida. I believe you are mistaken in your actions and conclusions, and I am formally warning you that further edit-warring may lead to a block. I sincerely hope that it will not come to that. Removing sourced content is rarely a constructive edit, and your efforts would be better directed to proposing alternate wording on the talk page in an effort to find common ground over how best to summarise what Tinniswood wrote. --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, I don't give a flying fuck about your warning and this passive-aggresive BS.
Also, the last revert was by Giano, pending which I made a thread at 3RRN and added more stuff to the t/p section, which sufficiently indicates that I am not going to edit-war. WBGconverse 14:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Godric, if the best response to a perfectly reasonable piece of advice is "I don't give a flying fuck" then you're running the risk of getting blocked. In particular, I haven't really seen you voice any opinion on the content, but just make vague hand-waving comments about policies. For example, consider your edit here. You removed a bunch of information about Malacrida's husband as "irrelevant" (okay, but in whose opinion?) and citing WP:REFBOMB which makes no sense given the account of Piero's interior design writing is cited to a single book source. In particular, removing the source and replacing it with a {{fact}} tag should be avoided unless you can demonstrate you have checked the source and found the claims are not present, in which case it's better to tag at {{failed verification}}, and even then only if you can back up and justify your tags. It's not really surprising your edits were reverted, as they don't seem to show any empathy for the subject matter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333,
T/p(s) exist for a purpose and our policies explicitly ask users to not discuss stuff via edit-sums; I have indeed launched a specific section for my reverts, post the first revert by Giano. Where RexxS has responded and I will respond, soon.
I need not show any empathy for a long-deceased subject; nothing whatsoever. Also, this is a bit rich, coming after all that has happened with you. WBGconverse 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User Talk Reverts[edit]

Hey there. I've noticed on a couple user talks that I watch that you'll sometimes make a comment and then decided shortly after to self-revert - in looking at your edits to user talks I see 4 such examples in the last week. Because of the nature of talk page notifications I'm guessing that in most situations that the person is still seeing your edit. So rather than walking back comments you think better of - what I am sure is your intent - it now causes all the impact of the post without allowing the person it's directed at to have a chance to respond. I'd like to suggest that you think just a tad harder before publishing comments to user talks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

hi[edit]

Hi there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurul_Alam_Chowdhury&diff=918265589&oldid=918255460 Just to let you know, I didn't mean to make this revert of your addition, not sure how it happened, mis click perhaps. Regards Govindaharihari (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari:-No qualms; it happens :-) WBGconverse 08:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Rain, mostly.
Message added 09:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SerialNumber54129 09:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Replied. WBGconverse 08:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A Yogi's Guide to Edit Warring and Walled Gardens[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Seriously [4], [5]? I understand your concerns about self cite/walled garden issues. I also appreciate your efforts to weed them out. However, for this particular article, the deletion discussion did not come up with a consensus to remove the content. I have started a discussion at Talk:Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy regarding this.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

IP continuing your edit war[edit]

This IP 157.43.235.10 is continuing your slow edit war. Please refrain if it is you. It is highly unlikely for a new user to dig up someone else's edit and type in those words. The IP is from where you live. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not me and you might be surprised to know that there's a feature that allows an user to restore an earlier article version.
FWIW, I am highly curious, as to how you know where I live most of the time. And about how you managed to geo-locate the IP with such extreme precision, amidst a highly contrarian data-set spanning over the breadth of a country, at a time when I was actually at United Kingdom.
The edit-summaries were not very mature either, FWIW and WP:SPI is that-way.WBGconverse 13:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Because you mention it yourself on your talk page when edit pops up. I am reverting you, please stop edit-war and respond on talk page. You have been engaging in slow edit war for ages. The IP did not 'revert' but edited! --Jaydayal (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

from your source[edit]

https://rasaneh.farhang.gov.ir/fa/newsagency/13355/%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%B5%D8%B5%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%AA%DA%A9%D9%86%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%AA

WP:NPA[edit]

I will kindly ask you to WP:REFACTOR your edits about me at disgraced and [6] in light of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed your EEML history and still, I was subtle enough to use disgraced, which FWIW is enough factual in light of your desysop + ban, for cause. If you deem that as a NPA, AN lies thatway. WBGconverse 05:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
There was nothing subtle about that, and I agree it was a blatant personal attack. WBG, I have known you for a while as a positive editor; please take a step back and consider laying off of other editors. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
An ex-admin de-sysoped and temporally banned for running off-wiki collusion networks is textbook definition of disgraced (OED defines it as Having fallen from favour or a position of power or honour). And to me, someone (irrespective of whether he is an editor of our site or not) being intrinsically involved in trying to remove a piece critical of him, from being used a source over an article, is textbook violation of our COI policy. On some reflections, I have struck off my statement that he should have been shown the door aka banned long ago, which do remain my feelings but is fairly irrelevant. WBGconverse 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That is exactly the remark that bothered me. That you think someone has disgraced themselves, that's one thing, but that other remark is quite another--it doesn't only mean a lack of good faith, but also suggests that somehow the community got it wrong the whole time. That's not impossible, but it's really hurtful. I am not all that aware of the EEML debacle, but I do believe that those involved paid the price, and that includes Piotrus--who, I understand, is now being smeared off-wiki by a banned editor. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Then we can consider it as resolved:-) I do agree that shown the door was unnecessarily harsh.
FWIW, I am a bit bothered about the reasoning :- but also suggests that somehow the community got it wrong the whole time. That's not impossible, but it's really hurtful.. The community shall not be compelled or expected to engage in some sort of group-think-like-reverence towards any event that have happened in this project; dissent (irrespective of however misplaced they might seem to individual eyes) have a place. I have definitely read you stating over somewhere (circa 2012/13; some AN/ANI thread, probably) that you did not (personally) agree with certain old blocks of Eric and thought they were poor to the extent of not mattering any, for determining a future sanction. Do you see that there is a scope of asking the same question to you, in a slightly re-framed manner? FWIW, I do not seek to comment on the merit of Eric's past blocks, in any manner. An example for the sake of it and where I agreed with your assessment. WBGconverse 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's less complicated than that, I think: if their past sins were so bad, they would have been punished more in that case that was so large in scope, but that's really as much as I want to say about it. I'm not saying that the community always gets it right, but I am saying that all this was a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Need help in Copy edit[edit]

Can you please copy edit Cauvery calling? Previously, it was written in promotional way, I requested deletion and recreated from scratch? — Harshil want to talk? 12:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I (normally) don't touch anything related to this god-man with a barge-pole or so; seem to have a network of spammers to filibuster and wear down others in a bid to maintain a promotional coverage. Still, will take a shot at it, within the next few days. Regards, WBGconverse 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I saw your recent edit on Romila Thapar. The discussion related to paragraph was already going on at Talk:Romila Thapar and we were about to reach on consensus while you removed whole content. Can you please reinstate content while discussion is going on ? You’re welcome to discuss your points there. Thanks for copy edit though. — Harshil want to talk? 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

Yes, I know, we're not the best of buddies, and I don't want any words to sound patronising. But I had to share this with you. I've followed the tone of your discussions with fellow editors in the past few weeks and I've noticed that you are being very supportive, helpful and are taking criticism with all good faith. Of course, even I have bad days like you, but just thought I'll drop in and tell you what I am perceiving. Thank you. Lourdes 12:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 Atsme Talk 📧 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed pictures from D. J. Sindh Government Science College[edit]

Hi there! You removed 4 pictures from D. J. Sindh Government Science College on 12:59 pm, 25 November 2016, Friday (UTC +5). Those pictures are not watermarked and are available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Link to the pictures are available on the bottom my talk page along with your notice. ZaeemAkhtr (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting...[edit]

I was just sitting here (at a major equestrian event) with some extra time on my hands while waiting for the vet to finish checking my granddaughter’s horse (he came up lame) and read what you just added to your very interesting user page info. I must say, WBG, I am duly impressed - you are the first male I’ve known who has crystal balls, ^_^ and I hope your account never goes rogue. Atsme Talk 📧 18:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Only one very quick question! Unfamiliar with Indian clothing customs (bracelets)[edit]

I am unfamiliar with Indian clothing customs. In the "Social disruption" section of Bengal famine of 1943 there is a photo that Fowler&fowler (who is on wikibreak, and I do not wish to disturb him) has labeled "Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943". Following this description, I made the alt text: "Alt text: Old photograph of a woman squatting and tiny, emaciated toddler standing on a sidewalk. The woman is shirtless but squatting to conceal her breasts. The toddler is wearing rags." But ... you know... those arms look kinda muscular, and so does the back.. the face is a bit unclear and a bit androgynous, so might be a young man, maybe late teens (?) .. do the bracelets definitely mark the wearer as female? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

WBG, I am sorry for interrupting. Lingzhi2, I believe this is a married woman. According to tradition, married Bengali women (at least those who are Hindus) wear a pair of white and red bangles known as "shakha pola". Perhaps the red ones are not visible. I am not aware of Bengali men wearing bangles. There is a video clip by BBC [7] of the 1943 famine, where you can notice other women wearing similar bangles. The clip has some disturbing images though.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
DreamLinker, you aren't interrupting at all. In fact, your answer is quite helpful. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Cheers! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit[edit]

I have reverted your edit to Ramesh Nagaraj Rao. Please do not remove sourced content, particularly during a deletion debate. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

[[WP:ROLLBACKUSE]Cease the abuse of rollback]] lest it be taken away. Please gain consensus of inclusion, over the t/p. WBGconverse 12:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hi, being the nominator of the AFD, you are WP:INVOLVED to take any administrative actions at the AFD, the same applies to user:Serial Number 54129. Also your removal of the IP vote is against policy, whether you're involved or not. There's no rule that prevents IPs from voting. Please self-revert. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramesh_Nagaraj_Rao_(2nd_nomination). SD0001 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson article: RS?[edit]

Hi.

I noticed your recent deletion, with the note "How is this a RS?"

Well. . .

  • His article appeared on the website of Scientific American" -- that is, the website of an ultra-respected scientific publication. From a search of the site, it seems that Bering has been writing a regular column there since at least 2011. That is to say, he's an invited contributor.

So: How is this not an RS?

I recognize that the views expressed are controversial (one might say "flaky"). But "The content is flaky, therefore the source is unreliable" would be circular logic.

So?

Cordially,

O Govinda (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a blog with no editorial control; a material scientist is not any expert in the relevant discipline. WBGconverse 06:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Gilgit Rebellion[edit]

Hi WBG, since you have the book and seem to enjoy this stuff, you might try and improve Mirza Hassan Khan and Aslam Khan (Pakistani brigadier). If you have the energy, you might even write a whole article on the 1947 Gilgit Rebellion, which is dearly in need! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

bilal 202.69.15.95 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NPA, NOTHERE, or am I being too sensitive? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Revocation" changed to "Abrogation"?[edit]

What do you think generally? As per link should "Revocation" be changed to "Abrogation" in the page "Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir"? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about what a BJP mouthpiece say esp. about these subtle semantics. WBGconverse 11:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Lol ok. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ISRO books[edit]

Good idea. I have created a category. I am in the process of expanding each of those book articles. In fact, there are half a dozen more such books that I am going to read and create book-pages. Thanks again. Scenecontra (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Since you are actively editing the Wikipedia page now, I find calling Republic TV a 'mouthpiece' of the ruling government is equally wrong too. That too in the first paragraph. The exactly same issue was earlier discussed in the talk page. Many hold similar opinions on NDTV type media too.... But NDTV's page has nothing of the sort... It would be strictly wrong to refer to any news channel as a mouthpiece. Please remove that too. Content like this can find place in criticism section only. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@HarshithaHappyGoLucky: -- I am engaging in a total overhaul; please wait. Leads do reflect the entirety of body incl. criticism (if any) and this will be no exception, either. WBGconverse 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Further edits request[edit]

Also please update the Audience share to the week 42 most recent figures.

The first line in criticism section looks more like a POV(*pushing of view). I'm sure the same information about the 'right wing bias' opinion of certain other sections of the medis could be written in an NPOV way.(*less aggressive way). This one's upto you. You may do it once you're done with the page overhaul.

Regards _/\_ :) HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher), HarshithaHappyGoLucky, If you are going to use acronyms here, then please familiarize yourself with them (and their meaning on Wiki) before using them. POV on wiki refers to the Point of View and not "pushing of view", you should use the full version if you intend to say pushing of view.--DBigXray 16:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed[edit]

Sorry for that. :) I only meant the view was put in a rather aggressive way. Also thank you for the edits. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A note of caution.[edit]

I saw that you removed material from an article with an edit summary describing it as fluff solely introduced for the sake of ref-spamming. I would strongly advise that you avoid directing language of this sort towards editors generally well-respected in the community for the quality of their work. In fact, I would generally advise that where sources which you find disagreeable are introduced to an article during the course of a deletion discussion, that you address the deficiencies of those sources in the deletion discussion rather than removing them from the article while the discussion is ongoing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted though I do believe that quality of edits shall be (mostly) evaluated on the basis of standalone merits. FWIW, I had already opened a t/p section with explicit analysis. WBGconverse 07:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Even so, when you open a deletion discussion on a subject, you are asking the community to express their opinion on whether sources exist which establish the notability of the subject. It is common for editors who wish to save the article to add sources—even poor sources—which the community can then evaluate. It is incongruous to ask the community to evaluate sources while at the same time unilaterally removing sources added to an article during the discussion. You might be concerned that the community will be fooled by the addition of what you consider to be "fluff" or "ref-spamming", but these concerns can be adequately addressed in the deletion discussion without further engaging in editing of the nominated article itself. bd2412 T 16:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Ruhollah Khomeini[edit]

sorry to bother you, but this material Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations. which was inserted during this edit is copied from this source.Saff V. (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Another one, this Khomeini defined transsexuality as a disease that can be healed by means of an operation is copied from this source in this edits (1, 2).Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
And close paraphrasing at this edit from this source.Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC close in progress?[edit]

Hello, WBG. At this ANRFC listing you said you were working on a close for the RfC. Is that still the case? I almost waded in to close it myself but I don't want to do so if you've been working on it. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and closed the RfC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies; I missed the notification for this thread. I had forgot the issue, in entirety and have no qualms about your's closing it :-) WBGconverse 04:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Woahhh Tentree 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Own note[edit]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thank you for taking out the time to improve Republic TV. DBigXray 10:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How to have access to EPW?[edit]

Hi Winged, I have been recently been given access to EPW by Wikipedia library. How to have access of it? It is being shown that new issues will be sent in a week. Will I be able to access archives then? Also, I have too many reference books and access to library offside Wiki. Can you tell how it will help here in resource exchange? -- Harshil want to talk? 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my (current) knowledge, TWL has merely sent your request to EPW, days back. They have their own internal workflow, pending the completion of which, you will be directly contacted by them and provided with login credentials. Using that, over the site, will grant you full access to their archives till-date. FWIW, any university-library having humanities courses ought be enrolled over JSTOR and IIRC, JSTOR has EPW archives until 2014.
Keep an eye out for requests over WP:RX and if a book/dissertation is available in a library, (that you can access), help out folks at your pleasure. Basically, notify them that you can help out and they will drop you a wiki-mail feature, thus disclosing their email to you ; you can then attach the scanned copies (jpeg/pdf) of resources, in reply. Best, WBGconverse 14:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Let me create a list of books and library under my user space first. — Harshil want to talk? 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add Swaminarayan Sampraday and Morari Bapu to your watchlist. Several Hindutvavadis or their followers are removing sourced content from the article without proper logic. I think there’s some off-wiki connection here. I am thinking to take long break but just handle these zealots. — Harshil want to talk? 07:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Compassionate727[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 18:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Need your input over at Talk:Republic TV[edit]

Sorry about our little "edit war" (if that's what is called an edit war) on the actual article. I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, just trying to do the right thing, and absolutely nothing else. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you following my edits?[edit]

Hi, I started editing after a few months. From the history on my talk pageIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC), I can see you are the same guy who was following me the last time? Is there some personal animosity? Why are you Wikipedia:Hounding me?IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The next block will be indef. WBGconverse 14:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI regarding personal attacks[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

N. S. Rajaram[edit]

Why did you make this change? How is labeling someone as "discredited" following [[WP::NPOV]] or encyclopedic? Rabbabodrool (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI ... WBGconverse 03:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have changed it to "Pseudo-scientific", which I think is a term more in keeping with Wikipedia's voice. BD2412 T 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a fairly good middle ground to take, but Rajaram is one of the extremely fringe characters of the Hindu Nationalism diaspora. Much of what he says is precise nonsense, garbed under mumbo-jumbo scholarship and critical reception is flatly negative. Will discuss at the t/p. WBGconverse 03:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
See WP:DR and don't come back to my t/p. WBGconverse 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Lot of POV statements above: "precise nonsense, garbed under mumbo-jumbo scholarship". This seems to be a mud-slinging exercise than a serious attempt to create an encyclopedia. Rabbabodrool (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are you linking me to some essay? People can point to the same essay and keep vandalising any page. But how would that help make wikipedia a good encyclopedia? Rabbabodrool (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, trying to change topics. Those policies talk about not using fringe sources when dealing with more general topics. But when talking about a fringe topic itself, you are still not allowed to use abusive language about the topic. This is an encyclopedia not your WP:SOAPBOX Rabbabodrool (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eisenhower Fellowships[edit]

This is heading towards a WP:SNOW keep, so I thought you might like the opportunity to withdraw the nomination. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. You might have snow-kept, as well ') WBGconverse 03:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a better way to handle it all around. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram[edit]

If you have a moment to clean this up, I'd greatly appreciate it; I'm stretched really thin at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

On tomorrow's to-do list :-) WBGconverse 16:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
another, if you've got the time...Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I know Devdutt personally; not the best person to edit that article .... WBGconverse 11:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, good call; the issues with it are more with language than with material, but even so, best not to meddle. I'll try to find the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

editToken[edit]

Hello Winged Blades of Godric,

Your script User:Winged Blades of Godric/EFFPTest.js is no longer functional because it attempts to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The script should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.BrandonXLF (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If you like to expand...[edit]

...then here is article MensXP.com related to one portal. I did cleanup and if you have some sources then add some content. Good Night!-- Harshil want to talk? 16:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Not in my domain of interest; hardly know anything about the website .... WBGconverse 11:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

New message from Compassionate727[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sections Circuit analogs and Telegraphic codes for India Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispatched emails. WBGconverse 11:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Jai Shri Ram[edit]

I will restore the content you removed from this article, which you said you "will rewrite". Please see the article's edit history - the content has been controversial since it was added in June, but the current wording is the result of the collaboration of multiple editors. The content is well-sourced (indeed, it is the only sourced part of the article) but has been repeatedly removed by anonymous and newly registered editors as "incorrect", "unnecessary", "fake news", "wrong news to defame" etc. - to the point where the article has been protected twice to prevent that and at least one user (Ezio bhumihar) was blocked. As you can see, you are walking into a bit of a minefield! You are an experienced editor; I am not reverting your change because I oppose any change at all, but because any rewrite would clearly need discussion on the talk page first. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.

WBGconverse

Vedic Mathematics[edit]

Hello:

Although I do accept occasional requests to copy edit articles from editors with whom I have had extensive dealings in the past, I prefer that GA copy edit requests such as yours be listed on the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests ). That way they are dealt with in order, in a timely manner.

That being said, I did run through the article as you requested and made what I think are appropriate changes.

The following paragraph has me completely baffled, however. This may be because of my lack of mathematical knowledge or because of the run-on sentences.

For example, multiple techniques in the book involve the use of high-precision decimal fractions. These were unknown during the Vedic times and were introduced in India only in the sixteenth century.[11] The works of numerous ancient mathematicians such as Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara were entirely based on fractions.[2] Some of the sutras even claimed to run parallel to the General Leibniz rule and Taylor's theorem (which, per Krishna Tirtha, were to be yet studied by the western world during the time of his writing) but did ultimately boil down to the sub-elementary performative operations of basic differentiation on polynomials notwithstanding the fact that historic India had no minimal knowledge about the conceptual notions of differentiation and integration.[2] Sutras have been further leveraged to claim that analytic geometry of conics occupied an important tier in Vedic mathematics and some others have been applied or asserted as being applicable to topics as diverse as statics and pneumatics to astronomy and financial domains.[2][11]

This sentence: "For example, multiple techniques in the book involve the use of high-precision decimal fractions. These were unknown during the Vedic times and were introduced in India only in the sixteenth century." Then there appears to be a contradiction with the sentence that follows: "The works of numerous ancient mathematicians such as Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara were entirely based on fractions."

I think that the rest of that paragraph needs to be rewritten in plain English so that it can be understood by the average reader.

The rest of the article is in good shape, I believe.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, a lot! Your point about rewriting the paragraph for average readers, is well taken. FWIW, decimal fractions refer to Decimal#Decimal_fractions but fractions refer to the typical a/b notation; need to clear that up. WBGconverse 12:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you check and published drafts.[edit]

Hi Godric. I have made alot of drafts of actors and actresses. Can I show them to you. I am new and i am learning new stuff around. Thank you.

New message from Compassionate727[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 17:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is actually very old, but I'm guessing you never got it... Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


New message from shurbanm[edit]

Shurbanm (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC) could you please elaborate on why you reverted my additions to the Gradeshnitsa Tablets?

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harshil want to talk? 10:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

About Thakur Anukulchandra page[edit]

Do not delete the content of Thakur Anukulchandra page without any refeence. If you have any please post on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoanWalker (talkcontribs) 15:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you have been continuously doing at Anukulchandra Chakravarty, you may be blocked from editing. Stop threatening me on my user page to hide your systematic vandalism to delete Wikipedia:Reliable_sources contents like ISBN page references and stamps issued by your Government_of_India. My friend, you speak good English. So congratulations but first deal with your third world country issues and don't show me your talent on my talk page. If you are deleting content pt appropriate comments and delete. WikiLoneCrusader (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You (and your sock) has a message at the article t\p. WBGconverse 08:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

New message from Compassionate727[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Newslaundry[edit]

Do you think there are enough sources now to create an article for Newslaundry? It was creation protected indefinitely on 13 January 2016 by an admin. It's been quite sometime since then and articles from it have also been used as sources a couple of times. DTM (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't think so. Hardly any source, that devotes significant coverage to NL. WBGconverse 11:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of ThePrint[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from ThePrint, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)