User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 3

Reviewer and rollback
Hello ARUNEEK. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A granted] the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.


 * Rollback user right
 * Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).


 * Pending changes reviewer user right
 * The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Article: John Pilger
You wrote: "Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to John Pilger."

The source is John Pilger himself, in a TV-feature about him on Australian TV. Which I feel I cannot write directly in the article, as my memory is not perfect.

But I felt the information is interesting and relevant enough to include, and I hoped that some other reader would contribute with a source in time, in true Wikipedia-fashion. I should have included a [citation needed], but I don't know how. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.46.118 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah.As you know, we have a very strong policy for citation in biographical articles and it would be very helpful if you could add a notable source behind anything you add as an info in any article (esp. biographical) where rate of content-vandalism is high.Happy editing!Cheers!(N.B.-I could not find the edit in my long contributions list.I am answering your question based on the most common rationale behind mine tagging the particular tag.It would be eagerly appreciated if you could add the diff./rev.id. of the page) Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 14:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Momina Mustehsan
Hey, You said that my account is fake, that is not true, this is my real Account, and I don't have any other account, and about Momina Mustehsan, I saw her article when it was updated and I really liked it,but afterwards it was reverted, so that is why I improved it again, I think that my improvement is pretty good and is according to the Wikipedia edit policy. Aashka De Seene Vich Dil Naio (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I could be horribly wrong but I am inclined to think you admit to being a sockpuppet when you say-"but afterwards it was reverted, so that is why I improved it again".Please see WP:SOCK and the SPI investigations here.Anyway, you can challenge the decision to tag you as a sockpuppet here.Thanks! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 14:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How to revert articles
Hey, how are you. I just want yo ask you that why you reverted my edits on Momina Mustehsan's article. I think that my edits were pretty good and is according to the Wikipedia edit policy. So I request you to revert my edits on Momina Mustehsan's article. I should be very thankful. :) Aashka De Seene Vich Dil Naio (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No,I'm not until the SPI investigation is closed.Whatever may be the quality of edit,we are here talking about WP:SOCK, whose violation is a strict no-go area for any Wikipedian, however high-held he may be in the community! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 15:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Atif Aslam
Hi !

You reverted my several edits, saying "good faith" and "See external links policy....".

But, it is not cleared to me that why you've re-inserted  to the years, making them bold, like 2010''' ? And from where can I "See external links policy...."?

OK, can I re-add the songs, making those links as reference? Hope for your kind responce. Thanks! M.Billoo2000 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:EL-"Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. " Also see WP:MOS.By good faith, I meant WP:GOODFAITH.Hope I resolved your issues.Cheers! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 15:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind reply ! Sorry to say, but from recent activity on your talk page, it doesn't seem that you are much helpful, also you've made several "Typo-mistakes" on replying.
 * Well, being a new user, I am no one to disturb you, but just want to say that the link you've mentioned here, WP:EL, also says, Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article. And I had linked from "officially posted videos" on YouTube, not from the "share(s)" or "repost(s)". Well you might be right, and now I am going to tag these links as reference.
 * Further, In WP:MOS, where is mentioned to bold the year for showing a good design? However, it says, All the dates in a given article should have the same format, and I had just made them in same format by removing characters.
 * Thanks again and sorry for what I have said. M.Billoo2000 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing to feel sorry about.You are well within your rights to criticise me if I'm wrong!


 * I do not specifically oppose your "un-bolding" in the article and accept that the policy do not specifically address the issue.But please do not misquote!The article states -All the dates in a given article should have the same format (day–month or month–day). Do not utilise a half-reading of a sentence to your cause. Regarding your adding of Youtube video hyper-links, WP:YTREF is the appropriate section.Although you later followed the proper rules(the article is now quite good!), in your rollbacked edit you directly linked the videos to the Youtube page rather than using them as references.I am crystal clear,that no policies support that.Hope I cleared up your concerns!Cheers! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 16:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Can you please explain why you reverted this change to Falls in older adults? The change was well referenced and attempted to improve the article. Reverting without explanation does not appear very helpful. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert at James L. Gelvin
Not sure why you reverted my edit on James L. Gelvin. I know I removed a lot of material, but if you take a look, none of it belongs.Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was just a perfect blunder.Hope you didn't mind my edit.Cheers! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 17:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries!Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop. Now.
As well as the two instances mentioned above, I'll add this edit to Ball turret. Please stop randomly accusing people of "vandalism" or reverting edits without explanation; you've had far more warnings for this than we usually give before blocking, and while I really don't want to lose someone who's obviously trying to help it's getting very close to the point where the disruption you're causing by making false accusations against good-faith editors reaches the point where we can't keep turning a blind eye. &#8209; Iridescent16:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but given the level of misuse from you—,, in the last couple of minutes alone—I've revoked your rollback permissions, as you're clearly machine-gunning through recent changes without checking what you're doing. You can re-request it at WP:PERM when you feel you can demonstrate that you understand what Wikipedia's policies regarding reversion and warning actually are. &#8209; Iridescent 16:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Utterly sorry for the mess. If you see my talk you will see I always give rationale to my edits if later asked in my talkpage.I am extremely sorry for my completely unhelpful edits.I am immediately reverting my edits if not already reverted.I actually did not take a look at my talk page during the short span of time and did not know of any feature in Huggle which would notify me about the barrage of incoming messages on my talk.Could you please provide me a penultimate chance and restore my rights so that I could have another opportunity to contribute in my anti-vandalism efforts,(May-be you can keep a strict check on the no. of rollbacks I perform every hour to maintain quality) in spite of my unhelpful contribs? I have always tried and will try my best to respect and follow advice by reputed editors and admin.(You could see my redesigned user-page after you told me about it's unproffesionalism.). Even, I am at a loss to explain why suddenly there was a spate of such dubious edits in a burst and I shall be very careful with my tools now-onwards if you chose to regrant the right.Thanks! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 17:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given how long your history of accusing random editors of "vandalism" is, I'm not convinced this was an isolated incident. I'm not going to restore rollback permissions myself, as from your recent history I don't think you understand what obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear actually means, although I have no objections if any other admin feels you deserve a second chance (paging Kudpung and Beeblebrox). &#8209; Iridescent 18:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know my edits were seriously quite disruptive,and a single bad edit severely outweighs one good one but I think the edits made by me prior to the mess was good(As it seems).I think after my altercation with Kudpung and until today's mess,I was ever reprimanded or has participated in an altercation.Would a second (I strictly mean penultimate ) chance prove too costly?Thanks Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 18:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the issues will be resolved until ARUNEEK is a little bit older and more responsible. I think also the Reviewer right should also be temporarily revoked until he can demonstrate that he can do some normal content work and clean up without making too many errors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I will demonstrate enough maturity with the Pending changes reviewer tool and will live up to your expectations.I always want to contribute in the utmost positive way toward WIKIPEDIA, irrespective of the disruptions I cause.I think 1-2 months will be a good span of time to judge me before some concerned admin re-enlists me with the Rollback Right.How do you feel?Thanks! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 16:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Umm..
My edit was constructive and needed. I added the reference to the video Pewds addressed it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDMfan23! (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ.I don't think every tiny aspects in the evoulution and progress of the game through the years is necssary to be incorporated in the article.If you are not satisfied contact with some respected editors/admins(User:Iridescent / User:Kudpung etc.) and proceed per the talks.Thanks! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 18:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well other games, like Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy have full in depth things. Is this game an exception?
 * So, like above in your page, STOP REVERTING EDITS USELESSLY!
 * Yeah,and you stop bantering about a particular set of edits in a fringe-game article!Try to distinguish between triviality and non triviality and sources which are reputable and which are not!Finer aspects of a particular Game are included in gravity with the reputation of game.Some articles are better to be short! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 17:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Might as well report you. And I am not bantering.
 * -Yeah,WP:ANI is the place to do so.Please put your signature on any further comments on my talk page and create a new section on my current talk page for any further discussion.Do not alter discussions in archives. Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 17:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback
08:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback
08:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Your Fool edits about Boinchi
This is a warning message to u. I saw u removed many lines and our whole historic "JAGADDHATRI PUJA" coloumn from our town's wiki page. If u will do that again, we will take necessary steps against you because any edits of u in BOINCHI Wikipedia page will be proven as vandalism. @ADMIN PANEL Suman6746 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So glad to hear that!As a side-note do the "ADMIN PANEL" adds gravity to your complaint?Cheers! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 12:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Chrysopetalum
Fixed the genus issue and removed tags. Better in prose? Notafly (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Twitter: 8.1 Issues and controversies
Greetings! I noticed you deleted the # of followers that Milo Yiannopoulos and James Woods had from the Twitter article, citing in your edit summary we don't need to know every petty detail. Curious why you thought the hundreds of thousands of followers they each had was a petty detail? The articles sourced felt it was important enough to provide the reader with the # of followers they had because they were high profile twitter users. Thoughts? Not attacking just curious...Cllgbksr (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A problem
Actually Mr Winged Blades of God, u r highlighting only the editing Bhutu n Goynda Ginni. That means actually u r not try to prove my faults, u dont want that nobody does Bhutu n Goyenda Ginni page editing. Only u want to do this. If u blame me for mistakes plz be neutral @Tahia_Naeema 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahia Akter Chowdhury (talk • contribs)

Plz try to understand @Tahia_Naeema 21:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahia Akter Chowdhury (talk • contribs)

Reply
-Here is somewhat a modified reply...

English

 * First of all,with regard to the policies,you are essentially seemed to be violating WP:RS,one of the foremost policies followed while writing statements other than universal truths. Well, it may be a fact that the names of the actors you add really act in the telly-serials but still the need for sources is pressing.But,I may tomorrow claim to be an actor in any of the serials and add my own name the same way.How could other people who have previously not known the actors/watched the serial verify it? That's why we depend on reliable sources-(the website of the serial,press reports etc.) to back up any claim,cast,plot etc. made in the article. Anyway, I will be reincorporating your additions back in the articles.Per the extremely less chances of such articles being vandalized,I think it's not pre-emptive to think that your edits are indeed in good-faith.Still, it would be appreciated if you could kindly cite sources.  Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but am increasingly inclined in believing that your competency in English language is below a certain level needed to understand ,aversion to develop consensus by interacting with other editors and properly execute the rules of editing to make good edits in the English version of Wikipedia. is not a very co-operative behavior.
 * I ' primarily', do not doubt your intentions as such but at the same time WP:COMPETENCE states-
 * ......editors are unintentionally and often unknowingly disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see an unintended side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this tenet that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess......
 * I think this is essentially the case here. Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an alternative,I will opine that you may be more comfortable editing here-the Bengali version of Wikipedia.Cheers! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't definitely admire someone who communicates in a telephonic text style, talking like a 7th grader using needless short forms of words! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bengali

 * সর্ব-প্রথম,নীতি বিষয়ে, আপনি এক প্রধানতম নীতি (মূলত)- WP:RS লঙ্ঘন করেছেন-- যা সার্বজনীন সত্য ছাড়া অন্য যে কোনো বিবৃতি লেখার জন্য অনুসৃত হয়.এটা সত্য হতে পারে ,যে অভিনেতাগণের নাম আপনি উইকিপিডিয়ার প্রবন্ধগুলিতে যুক্ত করেছেন, তারা সত্যিই ওই ধারাবাহিকগুলিতে অভিনয় করেন. কিন্তু, আমি আগামীকাল একই ভাবে দাবি করতে পারি যে আমি-ও ঐ ধারাবাহিকগুলিতে অভিনয় করি এবং আমার নিজের নাম প্রবন্ধ-তে যোগ করতে পারি.তাহলে কিভাবে সেই সকল মানুষ যারা পূর্বে ধারাবাহিকটির সাথে পরিচিত নন-এই বিবরণের সত্যতা যাচাই করে দেখবেন? এইজন্যই আমরা প্রবন্ধে বর্ণিত যে কোনো দাবি,বিবরণ ইত্যাদি সমর্থন করতে নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস(সিরিয়াল-এর ওয়েবসাইট, সংবাদ প্রতিবেদন ইত্যাদির) উপর নির্ভর করি. তবে,আমি আপনার সংযোজনগুলি নিবন্ধে পুনরায় সংযোগ করছি।

Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * আমি দুঃখিত কিন্তু আমার বিশ্বাস ক্রমবর্ধমান যে উইকিপিডিয়ার নীতি বুঝতে, অন্য সম্পাদকদের সঙ্গে আলাপচারিতার দ্বারা ঐক্যমত্য বিকাশ করতে এবং বিভিন্ন নিয়মাবলী মেনে উইকিপিডিয়ার ইংরেজি সংস্করণে সঠিকভাবে সম্পাদনা করতে ইংরেজি ভাষায় যে পারদর্শিতা প্রয়োজনীয়, আপনার পারদর্শিতা সেই সীমার নিচে. তবে অন্যান্য সম্পাদকদের সাথে আলাপচারিতার দ্বারা ঐক্যমত্য গড়ে তোলায় বিমুখতা-ও খুব একটি সহযোগিতামূলক আচরণ নয়. Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * একটি বিকল্প হিসাবে, আমি এই মত প্রকাশ করব যে হয়ত আপনি এখানে-(উইকিপিডিয়ার বাংলা সংস্করণে আরো আরামদায়ক সম্পাদনা করতে পারেন! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * কথোপকথোনের সময় একজন সপ্তম শ্রেণিতে পঠনরত শিশুর ন্যায় বাহুল্যহীন ভাবে শব্দের সংক্ষিপ্ত রূপ ব্যবহার করার রীতি আমি তারিফ করি না! Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 05:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Meraj Khalid Noor
I reverted your change to this article, but meant to undo with an explanation - hit the wrong button. Anyway, the reason is that the changed version did not reflect what the sources said. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He did not run in the 2014 national elections, since the electoral authorities had dismissed him as a candidate
 * Part of the reason no party would support him was that bin Laden was dead

Request on 19:20:47, 14 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Etan J. Tal
Dear Winged Blades of Godric, I accepted previous editors' reasons to decline submission and shortened the citations. Of course, it is possible to shorten citations even more or even totally omit them, but I do not see how the article will become better. Replacing citations with my text will lose the authentic spirit of the era. I also wonder what more reliable sources did the editors expect. Did you really check or read these references? As far as I know these are perfectly acceptable - while some are from newspaper(s), others ( Smith, Conacher) are pure academic and should be valid as reference by WP criteria. If you know how to practically improve the draft you are most welcome to assist! Thanks for a constructive help! Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Etan J. Tal(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

 * --Obviously you provided and shall continue to provide the sources for they are the tools for any article to be verifiable by the reader. I was basically concerned about the effective lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable source on the subject.
 * Accordingly,I conducted a detailed search and analysis on the sources you mentioned about the subject which yielded the following:--


 * Source 1-(Is backed up by the 2nd external link.)Trivial routine reporting.
 * Source 2-Failed to find the mention of the book although written by a quite-known author.Anyway, I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt to the creator.
 * Source 3- is a graduation thesis by some doctor(??).It mentions the subject in a mere 2 lines---Its shores had the honour of giving birth to John Williamson, the great innoculator of last century, who had wonderful success in averting the ravages of small-pox. The bones of good old " Johnny Notions " lie in the churchyard of Braken, close by.
 * Looks like WP:TRIVIAL coverage.


 * Source 4-I strongly doubt that it pass WP:RS].Anyway it quotes---Besides Mr. "Hornbook of the Clachan" every district in Scotland, thirty or forty years ago, had its rural me- dial practitioner. In thinly-peopled regions, these may still be found, of both sexes, though the surgical department are generally left to the men, while the old ladies are the Wilting physicians. There must be great ignorance and Presumption among members of this ungraduated faculty; only the conceit and bigotry of science can deny that ,v* self-educated physicians, like rare self-educated persons in other professions, sometimes discover knowledge but enlightened experience which may put the regularly- trained practitioner to shame. John Williamson, alias Johnny Notions, was some twenty years back the practical philosopher of his parish, South and Mid Yell, in Shetland. He practised inoculation with the greatest success because his practice was guided by sound principles. His most re- markable proceeding was, allowing the small-pox matter to mellow, or ameliorate, by long keeping. First procuring the best matter, he kept it for seven or eight years; and peat, reek dried it. His only healing-plaster was a cabbage- leaf. Johnny Notions, besides his high faculties, was a tailor, joiner, watch-mender, blacksmith, gunsmith, &c &c a most invaluable kind of person in a rude and unaccomodated society, where the Jack-of-all-Trades is supreme.
 * Looks to be too good to be used as a source! The main motive of the section seems to bash mainstream-science--a common attitude those days!(Anyway, there are also certain problems with the extraction of the texts of the section from the hosting site but the theme is fairly clear.)


 * Source 5-Do not passes WP:RS].


 * You have no doubt justified your quotations to be correct but what about the rest of the statements made throughout the article and the lede itself.Also, I believe the 2nd quote could easily be done away with. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 09:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A Google search brings almost nothing in the category of WP:RS on the subject.And I would reserve my judgement for later whether he even passes the basic--WP:NOTABILITY criterion on these trivial flimsy sources. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 09:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Feel free to contact me again if you're unsatisfied. Cheers! Light ❯❯❯ Saber 09:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very detailed answer. Considering your evaluation of the references I provided, and the lack of 'notable' sources, I assume it will be futile to continue working on this article. I appreciate your thorough work which helped me understand this. Etan J. Tal(talk) 08:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regrets, that you choose to not contribute to the article anymore.I am however sure, you will be contributing more quality articles to the encyclopedia using AFC in the days to come.Feel free to contact me anytime. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 08:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can propose the article to be speedily deleted under WP:G7, if you have absoulutely made up your mind to leave developing the article.Thanks! Light ❯❯❯ Saber 08:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Paschim Medinipur articles
I have completed revision of articles related to Purulia and Bankura districts. I will be going out on a holiday-break and will take up revision of Paschim Medinipur district articles in January, on my return. I thought I should keep you informed. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -Heartfelt thanks. I will also look to improve the Paschim Mednipur and other district articles in the coming days.Anyways, you have done a commendable work creating all those numerous good-quality articles when the quality of most of the articles related to West Bengal is quite low.Hope, you enjoy a good holiday.আপনার যাত্রা শুভ হোক!  Light ❯❯❯ Saber 06:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Creep Catcher
Hello and thank-you for attempting to remain neutral. I certainly do appreciate that this requires both sides of the fence in order to speak to the purpose of Wikipedia. However, the majority of information found within this article is Self referenced, or completely lacking reference. The public information found within sites such as google or duckduckgo for ambiguity and to avoid bias; speaks slightly on the opposite side of this story. Which, most certainly could be argued till we were blue in the face. However, this is the information outside of wikipedia submitted and found publicly. I'm unsure how else this information is to be reflected here, short the bias therein. I have as such re-done the edits until we can further deliberate or remove any such bias short reference(not self-reference). Tristippie (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -Warm greetings for the Holidays! You are free to add any type of information/data which criticize the policies of creep-catchers and shows them in a negative light. But please provide reliable source to justify it.Also, that an article is partially unsourced, is not a ground to push for more unsourced content to be included in the article. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 17:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, where are these policies written? I don't see that cited within this article and thus informative that I may do that, where does this ruling speak to the original author in regards to [WP:RS|reliable source]]. If you could kindly assist in showing me how to properly site that and leave me some feedback I would be very appreciative. further is how to proceed on the topic of bias Tristippie (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Bias
Sorry, just wanted to further to the above. The original article, the topic as such is by it's source, bias. The article of this organization has been written by an advocate of the group, So the question or problem posed to be resolved, who's bias should speak true here? the bias of the neutral search engine, as I have above suggested? The bias of the police? The bias of the founder of the organization or participant? This topic is extremely hard to address, and imo has no place here in wikipedia to begin with based on your feedback of bias alongside the fact that other such groups do not have pages on wikipedia? However, in order to speak to neutrality, who's opinion should this article reflect? as that is what this will be short siting or agreeing to site only professionals such as the RCMP, or other Lawyers and outspoken professionals? Sorry that's so long winded. Tristippie (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just reverted that again, based on the misinformation herein, I apologize, I don't want to go around the whole cycle, it's right within the source originally found on the page that they pose as women and later divulge they "lied about their age".

I'm unsure how this is supposed to work, but shouldn't this article reflect the given sources? even where it's not "cited", it should be accurate to the references provided right? Tristippie (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So short you having read the originally referenced material you have I can only assume undone edits and thus caused my account to be blocked? As stated firstly, these edits are warranted, despite your bias sir. They are in fact originally sited within article? So what exactly are you attempting here? or further to this, please make the edits you see fit and own this. Tristippie (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot ever block your account! Yeah,I may be biased but approach for a consensus on the article talk page.The community is not probably biased.AND please go through the numerous refutal arguments and exchanges that took place betwwen me and and me with a prev. user on pushing similar type of edits into the article.  Light ❯❯❯ Saber 06:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read the hoops you made User:TruthMatters jump through in order to provide even such minor changes? such as having them self proclaimed being a 'not for profit organization?' There's a site and reference for that and is a blatant untruth short direct reference.The exchange was unhelpful to the purpose of the site, nor did I find it at all helpful in promoting and encouraging people to participate in Wikipedia. Though I'm sure that was not your intent, that is sadly how it reads.

I'm sure you would like to help, so please answer the above regarding bias and neutrality so we can make appropriate edits to this page and stop the WP:EW Tristippie (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016-2017 removed
Your proposal for deletion has been removed, try posting your comments on talk page, there explanation has been given. Junosoon (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

closing RfCs
Putting aside the fact that you're not an admin, etc., can you also hold off on trying to close these RfC? Default length of an RfC is 30 days and even though it might look one sided atm, it's the holidays, people are busy, let the thing run its course. Perhaps a better thing to do would be to advertise the RfC more widely. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * --Cheers and warm greetings for the Holidays. I'm sorry but that particular RFC (where you had an active participation) was in my opinion way too one-sided to let it run it it's full course.And also, it's not that it had low levels of participation from the community.Anyway, you are far more experienced than me and if you think I made a mistake in judging the consensus,you may ask for a review.Feel free to contact me again! Light ❯❯❯ Saber 19:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's the holidays and if you look closely, there's definitely something weird going on with those votes. Just let it runs its course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree here. I suggest you hold back from closing RFCs unless you have a bit more experience. For example at Talk:2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation which you closed after having provided an opinion. Generally, only uninvolved editors should close an RFC. Try taking part in various RFCs and actually joining the debate. That will help you to understand stuff better. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * --Hi, Thanks for your words.Can you please take a kind look at all the RFC's I closed, so as to look out for potential problems.As a side note I generally take a ratio of 5:1 vote ratio for deciding the closure of the consensus provided all the statements are logical and esp. supported by Wikipedia policies.I will also avoid closing any more RFC which had been recently initiated ( in view it the Holidays) other than procedural ones or closures per WP:SNOW.Thanks! Light ❯❯❯ Saber 10:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you for your response and apologies for not replying earlier. Looks like the ping didn't go through (you need to ping and sign in the same edit). Anyway, I will have a look at the RFCs you have closed and reopen the ones which I feel could have been left open. Generally speaking, consensus is not a vote ratio, but rather how the arguments reflects policies/guidelines along with current editorial consensus. Another important issue is early closure. I generally try to avoid early closure because often the RFC itself is about bringing uninvolved editors to the page. For example, this one which I reverted, could actually benefit from more uninvolved opinions. In fact, whether an RFC should be closed per WP:SNOW is actually quite a tough decision sometimes and most experienced editors will avoid WP:SNOW closes. Even in some cases where an RFC is badly formatted, it is usually good to post a comment first asking if it would be OK to close the current RFC and start a new one. Anyway, I will go through your closes, but for the moment I would appreciate if you refrain from closing (it will simplify work for me and also make sure that other editors don't get angry haha). Once I go through your closes, I can tell you which ones are appropriate and which ones are not. You can take this as a learning experience! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * --As the things seem to be going, well I will be definitely taking a sabbatical from closing RFCs. Thanks for your gracious help in rechecking the RFC closures I made.. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 12:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)