User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 13

3-O required
Hey, WBG - would you please participate as a WP:3O at Talk:Chris Sherwin, scroll down to the local consensus iVotes and offer your opinion as to how the consensus should be closed? Thanks in advance...Atsme 📞📧 15:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for some background, this isn't a 3O case because we have multiple editors. The admin who just protected the page has also said that there is ongoing discussion where it wasn't appropriate to undo page protection, so it's rather inappropriate to suggest a close request immediately after that just happened. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct - I'll take it to DRN. Apologies for the disturbance, WBG. Atsme 📞📧 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No qualms!As Kingoffaces said, this isn't a suitable 3O case.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:26, 2 November 2017 (UT->

Email
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2017 (UT->

Ahmedabad International School
I think I found some sources with non-trivial coverage of Ahmedabad International School :
 * "DEO too look into penalty issue of Ahmedabad International School."
 * "NRI accuses school of refusing admission after accepting fee."

I'd like to re-establish the article. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is it not a high school, godric? Then those are usually kept and not redirected to their district, unlike middle schools. Galobtter (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * -Hmm... my eyes met the first source but I did not consider it sufficient or non-trivial enough.Anyway, two sources are sufficient to flesh out a stub!Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , as a note, high schools have to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. If you feel those two sources are enough to do so, then by all means carry on, but I thought I should mention it. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --Try preaching that at some high-school-related AfD:) Winged Blades Godric 14:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do... often. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do know that But I find that they're usually're kept at AfD under the assumption of more sources being found. So I don't see why this case has to be different (it's essentially a deletion in disguise, I think Godric should've AfDed it if he wanted it to be deleted as redirecting it to ahmedabad doesn't make sense), atleast assuming there is something to say about the school. Galobtter (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I just wasn't sure if you knew about that. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Found a third source, so Ahmedabad International School is here. Would anyone mind finding Gujarati or Hindi sources about this school?
 * BTW is https://www.aischool.net/img/AIS_logo_light.png the name of the school in Hindi?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --No, that's the motto of the school in Sanskrit! Derived from an Upanishad Sloka, it roughly translates to:--Let our efforts at learning be luminous and filled with joy, and endowed with the force of purpose.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 04:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I am Funmi. I got a message that a new page i am creating is proposed for deletion.It is actually my the first page i will be creating on wikipedia. Please i need assisstance on how to go about it, The Individual i am writing about is a notable person in Nigeria's Technology.He has brought significant change to the industry. So i need to know what part of the article i need to change or re-write. Thank you in advance. I really do anticipate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkinkuotuFunmi (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC) 

WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017
Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries. And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

Links

 * Wikidata statistics
 * I4OC progress in its first year, with 47% of scientific citation data now open (announced two days ago)
 * The flowering ORCID, Magnus Manske blogpost on identifying authors of scientific papers
 * @querybook, a Twitter feed devoted to SPARQL queries
 * Massive progress on Wikidata coverage of the UK parliament
 * Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM

Editor. Please leave feedback for him. 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) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * }

Mistake?
So why did you un-review User:Reviewer 65? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Initially, on some rambled thoughts, I thought sock user pages are not meant to be indexed i.e. not reviewed.But, upon not-finding such policies, I choose to re-review it:)Only that, I now discover my re-reviews were not logged and L3 did it.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 14:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus, user pages are no longer indexed (that changed 2-3 years ago, I think) so at the end of the day it doesn't matter ;-) Primefac (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that unreviewing a page adds it back to the queue, wasting someone else's time. If a page should not be indexed, there are better ways to address that. I recommend against mis-use of your patroller flag when you're unclear as to Wikipedia's guidance on the subject. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, leave it out. Godric made a mistake; we all do. Sure, maybe the question should have been asked before the page was unreviewed, but it's not an omission that requires a bollocking. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm..., if you are going to ever re-approach me, please shake off the needlessly condescending and authoritative tone.And, I hope you remember that the ANI thread wasn't too far back.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 16:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making your threat. Every now and then I seek to improve Wikipedia by questioning mistakes and bad decisions. I was heretofore unaware that you, too, prefer silence over constructive criticism and dissent. Rest assured, you've communicated your displeasure. I won't be back at this talk page. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are always free to question my decisions and I certainly appreciate constructive criticism.But, if you are choosing to throw words like misuse, desysop etc. every now and then, assuming as little good-faith as possible, with little consideration towards the gravity of the underlying situation, not many would be willing to be passive listeners.And for that fact, neither I nor (in my belief) all those people who commented at the thread even minimally want to see you quit. Winged Blades Godric 17:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

revert on ae
I notice the informational section at the top of the ae board states " All users are welcome to comment on requests." I'm going to go ahead and revert it back but if I'm missing something here It'd be great if you could inform me, thanks! Gabriel syme (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see now that another user moved my comment up to the main body, instead the 'result' section, that makes alot of sense. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Re sandbox edit discussed on Teahouse
Hello, if you know something I don't regarding this matter and are unable to discuss it, I accept your word on that and feel free to restore the speedy. I don't mean to step on your toes if you have knowledge I don't. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --Greetings! You are quite afar from stepping on my toes:) And, I appreciate your removal. G3 does not make any sense to common eyes.As, I said, I will assume good-faith and just keep an eye out for the user's activities! Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 14:39, 19 November 2017 (UT->

Bite
Don't you think that this "Warning: Using multiple accounts of User:VivaCatalunya" was rather more bite-y than necessary? As you can see from her user page, Lynette is the manager of the Working Class Movement Library in Salford. As it happens, I was standing next to her when she received your warning, so I was able to explain. You're right that User:VivaCatalunya was making the same sort of edits: they were both in the library, engaged in an editathon. I'm afraid that Template:uw-agf-sock doesn't do much agf'ing, and I'd be obliged if you'd refrain from using it without being rather more sure that some sort of socking is going on. Anybody guiding new (or infrequent) editors through their early efforts is likely to trip whatever triggered your interest in those edits, and organisers of events meant to recruit new editors will not be pleased to have those new editors introduced to wiki-cockups quite so early in their careers. TIA. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

--See my reply at Odder's t/p about why I choose to bring sockpuppets etc. into play.And I have to agree that the template has zero AGF quotient.And again, regrets for the incident:( Winged Blades Godric  03:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain to Odder – sorry I hadn't spotted that before I grumbled. All the best. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain to Odder – sorry I hadn't spotted that before I grumbled. All the best. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A Bengali publishing house that runs sockpuppets
Hello Winged Blades!

I've seen that you've called out the sock/meatpuppetry in the deletion review of "Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo". In that discussion, I have carefully laid out the evidence that those were indeed sockpuppets. Since you are a native speaker of Bengali while I have to painstakingly run references through Google Translate (when they are not just Facebook and thus obviously unsuitable as refs), maybe you might be interested in exploring the justifications of the existence of the article about the publisher itself (after I've removed some obviously unreferenced and misleading sections). They appear to be running a concerted effort to expand their "Wikipedia presence". What's left of their claims to fame in their articles is a list of their "notable books" (one of which I have nominated for deletion and another one releases tomorrow, but they've already got a draft for it), the list of "notable authors"—and I have no way of exploring whether there are any refs for whether those writers are indeed signed up to Barnik (though it in itself would not justify the existence of the article about the publisher) and whether they are indeed well-known. And there are several refs in the intro which I'd have a hard time investigating (although at least one of these I have already looked at, and it is just a report about a book fair and in no way substantiates the claim that there were any "bestsellers").

Maybe you could look into it.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the cause of developing the culture of minority languages, including book publishing. But alas, Wikipedia is not a tool for promotion, as we know.

Feel free to ignore this mean instigation if you don't have time for it :) ––––Latreia (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing.Please, wait:) Winged Blades Godric 05:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --See Sockpuppet investigations/Taniya94.Your set of differences at DRV was quite good.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 06:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have not been too active on Wikipedia, so I don't really know what to do in case I strongly suspect sockpuppets. –––Latreia (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also keeping a close watch at Draft:Koto Bhoot! Ki Adbhut!.This entire effort seems to be heavily centered on Barnik Prakashon. Winged Blades Godric 09:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was even necessary to clean up this draft, just keep an eye on when Taniya is going to try to move it to Mainspace. It is an immediate candidate for speedy deletion, because a book that's just been released can't be notable by definition; so it's plain and unambiguous WP:PROMO. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion right now, but I just don't want to do that because that would delete edits by one of the sockpuppets. While they are being investigated, let the page stand. ——— Latreia (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Spamming
Why are you spamming MfD with things that don't belong at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm..:--Where do they belong? Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I reviewed through each and every nomination of my own to check whether I made any type of dumb edits like over here but could find none!Care to elaborate? Winged Blades Godric 10:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of them are CSD eligible. If speediable, tag as such. Has someone been declining or removing your CSD tags?  If so, mention it in the nomination.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're using twinkle right? It is very easy to tag.  I note that your User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric/CSD_log is mostly red, so you must be getting them right, maybe your slightly too conservative?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sudden-conservatism may be stated to be a result of conversation with one of our over this thread! That being said, I ought to have used CSD in some of the cases:) And, as a side-note, if your sole locus of contention was my avoiding CSDing, you could have phrased your opening query in a more gentle manner.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric  11:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was meant to be funny, most of your nominations were citing spam. I like funny, even thought I am not very good at it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! Even I seem to be not very good at it:) Winged Blades Godric 11:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The accusation of being "highly experienced" is more than I should have to take. In any case, I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of one who is almost as highly experienced as one who may well be almost more highly experienced :p   &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 11:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better, in your latest, to allow a community discussion to take place. That would allow instant G4 deletion to take place, and I believe has not yet occurred. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 09:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm..That's why I did not choose G4.But, IMO, after the multiple attempts to derail discussion and move across name-spaces to (sort of)void XFDs and a very well attended MfD, I think this' s a case fit enough for quasi-IAR deletion of such blatant promo-spam.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric  10:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * At any case, if you think that there's need for an AfD on the topic, feel free to decline my tagging:) Winged Blades Godric  10:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well quite. But if a discussing did take place, then you could tag G4- which is less liable to- can we call it reinterpretation- by admins, than A7...? Thank you for that permission, one I might avail myself of... &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 10:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah:) As a side-note, feel free to decline any CSD of mine in the future, without seeking my clear approval.Regards:)
 * I don't like "declining" other editors' good-faith CSDs, it kind of intimates that my opinion/interpretation etc is better grounded than theirs; and why should it be? Of course, dumbassery like G12 on a 20% Copyvio, or A7 on the Times of India should be reverted on sight :) but that's not the case of course. Very cogent db-reasoning, and an equally strong AfD !vote rationale, whichever occurs. Take care! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ZipBooks draft submission decline
I can't imagine the amount of nonsense that you have to put up with so I'd like to approach this in the spirit of collaboration.

The references are all free of conflict of interest. The reporters or organizations that wrote about ZipBooks - including the Wall Street Journal and the State of Utah - weren't paid or simply republishing a press release that we sent to them.

Is there a process where I can send you email threads that document the back and forth conversation that eventually resulted in a story? I'd really like to appeal your finding here in an appropriate way. :) Any ideas? Second submit I removed many of the references and still not completely eliminating skepticism about objectivity.

JustaZBguy (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you put my sandbox page for deletion
Hello, Godric. I was not meaning to have a hoax on my sandbox page, I was merely trying to test out the editors and templates to experiment and learn how to edit. I read to info page on sandboxes and do not believe my page should've been deleted based on that criteria. I am a new wikipedia and my goal is to provide knowledge and help to people, not vandalism. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Godric, I pinged the deleting admin on Yuri's talk page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:35, 23 November 2017 (UT-->

November 2017
I just responded to Cullen328 and had seen your approving the action of Cullen328. But, remember Cullen has fallen short of replying to the logical issues/imports that I raised as to his interpretations and his claims of complying with wiki policies. Whether it is you or Cullen, both forget that speedy deletion notice of this article clearly stipulates in the very first three lines that the contributor should be given an opportunity to remove the promotional or advertising content if any himself/herself. On the other by affixing a tag at the end of the article, the contributor may authorize the administrator to do it himself the editing of the article freeing it from promotional or advertising content. But, above all, Cullen has failed to answer my contesting him how can he describe mere adjectives, which are normally used in respect of all such articles posted in wikipedia, in my piece as promotional and advertising? How can it apply to a government servant top cop? Did he examine the full import of the meaning of promotional without identifying the end beneficiary of such 'promotional' (disputed) content? You do not apply rules selectively to justify your actions done in an undemocratic manner despite wiki rules clearly suggesting the opportunity to be given to the contributor for freeing the piece from any promotional content. Please have the humility to accept your misreading and misinterpretation. Do not try to teach Professors. Please restore the piece unconditionally and I shall edit it as per your norms and resubmit or post it on wikipedia. Don't be self defensive for the wrong you had committed in the name of complying with wiki policies CSHN Murthy (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
 * I took no administrative action whatsoever regarding any of your contributions,, other than looking at the text of the deleted article and expressing my opinion. I deleted nothing here. I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of my role and you really ought to stop it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * --I am declining to comment on your afore-said message, since either you have got our message by now or won't get ev->

dear Authorized,
WHY did you delete the page? I think it has enough resources and knowledge. for example, this article is too short and inadequate but you have approved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batuhan_Karacakaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayselonline (talk • contribs) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are technically wrong since I did not or rather cannot delete your page and only draftified your page, suppressing the redirect and I, except in my capacities at WP:NPR cannot be held responsible for the approval of any page, which is clearly not the case here . Wikispeak aside, see why other stuff exists is a pathetic argument.Further, answer the question asked to you at Dlohcierkim's talk-page.Also, read about what constitutes a reliable source and what not. Winged Blades Godric 09:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ..and who in Sam Hill authorized you, Authorized?! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 10:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Fortuna, you definitely decreased the immense pleasure that I felt after being privilege to such a salutation:( Should you not have delayed your question?! As to your query, me thinks that the identity and whereabouts of the authority of my authorization, those data should be better provided by Aysel! Cheers!  Winged Blades Godric  10:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Caste warrior
I need some answers because i am may be incorrect or maybe i don't have enough knowledge on this particular topic. Can you tell me how to edit templates if Sources are not to be applied?? If there are no sources then how would you trust that templateIndiaIsTheBest (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First things first, sign only at the bottom of your message, nowhere else.We trust the template as a continual accurate reflection of the broader article or set of articles on the topic.And time has shown, that sneaking in unsourced entries at any template get caught easily by one or the other within a short span of time.That being said, if you believe that any entry is not supported by sources in articles etc, start a disc. at the template t/p. Winged Blades Godric 11:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So how do you edit templates? If templates don't need sources, then should we just edit them with whatever that comes in our mind?
 * Or should the classification be based on reliable resources? Which indeed i have... Take a look to this page sir


 * If you agree on this Google Book source, please change back to my edit sir. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndiaIsTheBest (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You do neither have the competency nor the motives required to participate in en.wiki.So, why not move to reddit etc.? Winged Blades Godric  15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom