User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 7

Email
I emailed you. --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

15:14:40, 3 May 2017 review of submission by Lukendo
Hi, identity (registered trade mark) the self-perception questionnaire is Accredited by the British Psychological Society as an Occuptational Personality Questionnaire, a registered Psychometric Tool not to be mistaken for or connected with the OPQ32 or OPQ which is a seperate profiling tool owned by SHL CEB. Hope this helps.
 * Sorry,the subject of the article has no sign/indication of passing WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 16:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Indic scripts RfC
Hi and thank you for making the brave effort to close this complicated discussion. I would however ask you to reopen it: it has only run for two weeks (whereas RfCs are normally expected to run for to a month), relevant wikiprojects were not notified until a few days ago and there were many unresolved issues in the discussion.

On a side note, I'm surprised that you found strong consensus for the proposal. True, a vote count of 70% support could be indicative, if taken by itself, for such an outcome. However, very few of the support !votes were accompanied by any argument, and the oppose side raised what I believe are serious issues, which were never properly addressed. – Uanfala (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * -❌--Staleness of the discussion is an important factor in deciding the closure of RFCs.Furthermore, on a re-read, I believe my assessment of the consensus was correct.The requirements of WP:RFC are not as strict as WP:AFD.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 10:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But the last opinion in the discussion was from 1 May, whereas you closed in on the 3rd, less than two days later. Is that really stale? At any rate, I understand that you believe that your assessment of the consensus was correct, but I don't really see how you've arrived at it, and that's not clear from either your closure or what you now say about your "reread". – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please wait for a while. Winged Blades Godric 10:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have clarified my rationale behind the close.But regrettably, it hardly affects the outcome.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 16:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed reasoning. I'm still wondering though, what's your take at what I continue to see as the greatest problem with the proposal: its scope. Why should it extend to (almost) all the articles in WP:INDIA, rather than the subset where the rationale actually holds (i.e. where users have edit-warred, or more broadly where the choice of script could be seen as contentious)? ([I]t's really hard-pressing to think of articles where a single script would suffice – I'm not sure where you got that from. What people were arguing for is that there are really many, possibly (I reckon) hundreds of articles where the choice is difficult. But the total articles that potentially fall within the scope of INDICSCRIPT are over one and a half hundred thousand, and that's larger by several orders of magnitude. – Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be bothering you again, but I don't really see how the major issues with the proposal have been addressed. I appreciate your detailed addendum to the close, but I don't think it fully represents the substance of the discussion. The facts that the proposal has wide-reaching consequences (potentially entailing the removal of content from up to 160,000 articles) and that the discussion has only run for half the time that RfCs are usually expected to run, give me strong reason to believe that the discussion shouldn't have been closed so early. Again, I ask you to reopen it. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regrets!I have already clarified that the benefits of a blanket-ban it's boons! Also, the last two outsider votes cropped at 24th and 29th of April.(In response to your comment on the timing of the closure.) If you want to challenge my closure, WP:AN will be the right venue---for I see no need to change anything in the current RFC closure.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be making such a fuss, but I hope you'll understand why I care if a decision that affects such a large number of articles is achieved in a prematurely closed discussion. I've brought this up at Administrators' noticeboard. Btw, your last ping didn't work: it needs to be on a newly added line with a signature of its own, see WP:PING. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * {{No qualms!I may be wrong!Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 13:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RM closure of Thai League T1
Hi. I really think that your non-admin closure of the RM was premature, since there was no clear consensus for retaining the current titles for all four nominated articles, and that the discussion should have been relisted instead. Please consider re-opening the discussion. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

✅--That was a tad pre-mature. Winged Blades Godric 15:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Suppressing redirects for talk page moves
I've noticed you've been moving some talk pages without leaving redirects. This is generally not a good idea, as it breaks a lot of links. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,I am looking as soon as I am on a PC. Winged Blades Godric 15:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Input required
You two have been pinged on Administrator's Notice Board. I will see you there. — usernamekiran (talk)  22:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No you won't, it's a redlink. Also, why notify me here and not on my own user talk page? Come to that, why bother at all when had already notified me? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * -A ping generally does a good job of notification! Winged Blades Godric 03:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain this revert
Hello, this is by no way a good faith edit or vandalism. Please explain your rationale behind this revert. Thank you. Iplboii (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --You may revert me!Anyways you seem to be heavily efficient for a new user! Winged Blades Godric 17:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that up! Anyways, I'm not a new editor in any way (check my user page). Iplboii (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * -- Thanks!Missed that! As a sidenote, yoy wrote--so I created this account to use better tools--Is this some sort of clean start? Winged Blades Godric 17:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WBoG, but Iplboii, you are not obligated to answer this question. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it! Um, no. By better tools I meant the ability to use the advanced editor that can be accessed only through preferences. I figured editing as an IP wouldn't offer me those privileges. And I don't plan to return to Wikipedia (except the few edits I made through this account!) anytime soon. Thanks! Iplboii (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Yep, you were right!
 * --Thanks for your reply!Sincerely hope you choose to stay here! Winged Blades Godric 17:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Defies rational explanation.
Hi. Thank you for contacting me to inform me that you have reverted my edit. Very polite of you. Unfortunately your reversion itself defies rational explanation - as far as I can see. The sentence I changed is:"A comprehensive list of siderophores is presented in." This is simply wrong. To be specific: "...in." is a hanging preposition. It REQUIRES more. You have two rational choices (imho): 1. is to simply place the period AFTER the reference so that the sentence is:"A comprehensive list of siderophores is presented in [16]. This suffers from the two problems that the reference is variable (currently it is reference 16, but that can easily change, and probably will) and that the reference is superfixed (is that even a word? IDK) which might be seen as not part of the sentence's meaning. -or- 2. point out to the reader that the preposition includes the superfixed reference, which I did by changing the sentence to:"A comprehensive list of siderophores is presented in reference [16]." Either is so clearly BETTER than your original sentence that I don't understand why you waste my and your own time doing this, other than pure ego. I'm calling you on it. By the way, the reference we're discussing appears (in a slightly different format) also as reference [3]. This can be found in the sentence directly below the two tables in the article. That sentence REPEATS the same thing the sentence we are arguing over says, possibly in a more useful way. Anyway, thanks for the polite message. If you really think you've made the right choice, then keep your reversion. I, respectfully, not only disagree, but I am unable to understand your thinking at arriving at your opinion. In your profile, it mentions you are "in school". In case you are less familiar with literate and formal English than I, I offer the following: Generally, when the body of a work directly references another work in a sentence (as contrasted with referencing the other work for a sentence), the author is used. That is, the sentence under discussion here would be something like:"A comprehensive list of siderophores is presented in Hider, et al.[16].98.21.66.236 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Basically, I reverted you because such statements are hardly present at the body of the article.You may re-insert the data in your last form at footnotes.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 17:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminder on AfC draft
Hi, just a quick note to remind you to review Draft:Bharti Sharma Kshitij; it's been on my watchlist since I last reviewed it and the editor seems to be getting a bit impatient. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

13:49:19, 9 May 2017 review of submission by Divyanshu0.2
Dear Sir, the issue raised by you were solved and the article was resubmitted, now on my article draft there is a template showing which says "If this template has been unchanged for more than twelve hours, please ask for help at our live help chat from experienced editors", and it has been more then 12 hours, the article is also showing the resubmit button behind it kindly help and tell me what should I do ? Should I resubmit the article, kindly help. Thank you so much
 * --It looks quite good and maybe some copy-edits will suffice to make it suitable for inclusion in mainspace.But the major problem is that the Reflist template etc. are corrupted.I tried to fix them but could not.Once you have repaired it please ping me. Winged Blades Godric 16:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry WBOG but You don't need to try and fix any template. @WBOG: If you're unable to fix it, you think a new editor will be able to do it? Anyways, i left a note below because you had left it marked as reviewing for 8 days now. I don't think Divyanshu will be able to resubmit unless you finish your review... If you need any help, I'm just a ping away! Yashovardhan (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Opposing the proposal
Sir, It is requested to you to wait for tagging such proposal of deletion. D.Bagchi was a famous mass singer of India who has represent the state in national cultural association like IPTA. also attached with internationally known cultural political figure like Salil Chaudhury, Soumitra Chatterjee and Hemango Biswas. let me give some time to add appropiate references. it will take some time to add. after the complition of article you may decide regarding this. thank you. Pinakpani (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Acc. I have moved the article for the time being to Draft:Dilip Bagchi.Please develop your article over there and move to the mainspace once it's complete.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 08:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you boss :) Pinakpani (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

still reviewing?
You've been reviewing this draft for 8 days now. Need any help? I'm just a ping away... Yashovardhan (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I have unmarked it.Somehow forget to do that yesterday!Thanks for your help! Winged Blades Godric 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Indicscripts
About indicscripts in infoboxes per Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Does this apply to Bus and railway station articles also?-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   04:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Will be replying soon! Winged Blades Godric 05:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --,the formulation proscribing the use of IS infoboxes applies to the afore-mentioned articles.Category-wise exemptions may be sought and subsequently enacted iff there is a consensus among editors to do so.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 05:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   05:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive User on RFC you closed
Hello. You closed out this RFC: with the summary, "Unanimous consensus to use the ref. source.The block-quote may be trimmed." The guy who wanted the info removed completely is now going against consensus by trimming it. Could you clarify, perhaps here:, that when you said may be trimmed you did not mean that the consensus was to trim it or that it should be trimmed? Faustian (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --✅:--I feel both of you were somewhat wrong on tackling the issue.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 05:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Yashovardhan (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

CLOSING PAGE MOVE REQUEST AND REMOVING OTHERS COMMENT'S
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you [ trigger the edit filter]. at Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation Human Rights Foundation (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * --Yeah,I knew!Just see this thread.Anyway, just noticed that you saw my mail.Are you userfying the translation?Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 16:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am a bit busy right now. I will userify it as soon as I get time but then we wont be able to use that translation tool (It wasn't much of a help either). Give me a few more days. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It happened faster than expected. See User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Translations/Devotional Time. I am translating the page भक्ति काल from the Hindi Wikipedia. Its far from complete but I am willing to publish a short article first and then work over on adding more sections later. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This user reverting my notice relating his VANDAL edits!!!
I edited Human_Rights_Foundation and this admin are attacking me. They removed all supporting evidence to delete an article. Requires review. ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Human Rights Foundation (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

close request
Can close this discussion/survey on Donald Trump here? Also take note of MelanieN's comment under the Survey section. I think she supports B4. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC to include SRS in Controversial Reddit Communities
Hi, typically there is a rationale when closing an RFC. I didn't see one on the SRS closure. Could you give a rationale please? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌:--I see little need. Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For those of us who don't understand how the conclusion of consensus was reached, do you mind explaining? Thank you.  ETA - this is more for my own understanding, so I can get a better handle on consensus.  I read the wiki article on consensus, but was just curious as to how you arrived at your answer.  Not challenging it - genuinely trying to learn the ropes. 2602:301:772D:62D0:A969:A287:89C0:9255 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)  2602:301:772D:62D0:E41D:9DA5:4BB6:329F (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seen. Winged Blades Godric 07:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Like I said just trying to learn the ropes so I can better understand consensus for future discussions.  I appreciate you shedding some light on it.  Were you going to post it here or over at the Controversial Reddit Communities article?  2602:301:772D:62D0:A969:A287:89C0:9255 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Prob. post it here by morrow afternoon.(GMT +5:30) Winged Blades Godric 07:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Any luck? I didn't see anything but maybe I'm looking at the wrong page..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B05A:6B:5890:F5A4:5AAB:738B (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops!Sorry!Forgot the issue in it's entirety.The week-end will be a busy one.So monday,morning---in what is going to be my next edit! Winged Blades Godric 16:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! I appreciate you going through the effort for just one person. A number of my edits have been reverted or rejected.  At first I thought it was personal, but am now realizing it's based on policy/procedure. That's why I am holding off on editing until I can better understand the mechanics of things around here.  Consensus seems as good a place as any to start. 2600:1012:B05A:6B:5890:F5A4:5AAB:738B (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Any luck? Wanted to make sure you had not forgotten about this. I re-read the close, and still am trying to determine how consensus was reached.  Was it just a vote?  Thanks again. 76.79.205.162 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WBOG. did you forget about this? If you need more time, that's fine.  I'd rather be patient and get a full explanation. Ive been reading more on consensus and it is starting to make more sense, but I still need help understanding why it was applied in this particular instance.  Thank you again for your assistance! 76.79.205.162 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently I've offended you in some way. If that is the case, I apologize.  I am hesitant to contribute to Wikipedia until I understand the rationale behind closing the RFC.  At this point my best guess is it is based on a vote tally.  I will no longer bother you on your talk page, as at this point I seem to have worn out my welcome.  You are obviously very bright and are adept at understanding policies here.   On the other hand, I am a junior-college dropout so I am beginning to realize Wikipedia may be too cerebral of an endeavor for me.  So again my apologies - it was never my intention to harangue you even though it may seem like that is indeed what I've been doing.  As they say, the road to help is paved with good intentions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B012:ABC:9D45:3F99:E6C1:E28 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, a big Sorry---for letting this remain stale for such an extended period of time.The closure was mostly on basis of Jorm's,Artw's and Peter's reasonings---which puts it well.Secondly, I may be wrong but geo-tracings etc. leads me into believing that you were one of the !voters in the discussion--which is forbidden.As to your prev. comment; whether one is a college-dropout or a PhD doesn't matter as long as he/she is editing in the best of the practices, willing to listen to the community and follow the 5 pillars.And lastly, one more time--I am regretful--that I gave you the impression that you were haraguing me; when there was zero fault from your end.Lastly,I would advice you to create an account and be a part of our community.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 04:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. I am still confused about the closure though.  Peter claims a misunderstanding of sources and ArtW and "jorm" seem to think the controversy is internal to Reddit.  But this does not really answer the question posed.  If multiple reliable sources refer toSRS as an unqualified controversial Reddit community, then why not add it to the list of "Controversial Reddit Communities"? 2600:1012:B01D:680:9904:52F3:BA06:693C (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I have not been clear. What I have been asking for the last three weeks is a very simple analysis of !votes, similar to what you did for the Zionist Occupied Government article below on your talk page.  If you are unwilling to do or are simply too busy that's totally fine, I will stop asking.  If you ARE able to do so that would be wonderful because as it stands, the reasoning behind the NO votes do not seem to based on policy (although I could certainly be wrong). 2600:1012:B045:CFA7:ADFC:9DC8:7A48:3A76 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * interesting that you seem to be ignoring me again. 2600:1012:B00E:B47B:CCC7:7A20:F860:AB75 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for handling the situation. 2600:1012:B05A:3A60:CCDD:CB0D:4EA6:40F2 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Camatkarasana


yoga jouranl is reliable

Are these sources ok? I'm wondering it could be written to an appropriate length. And if they are pathetic, why would they be?Gakiwa (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --As to the first website, see WP:COPYRIGHT.The second website fails WP:RS. Winged Blades Godric 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ananda Balasana: yogajournal.com has this asana as well as, enough?Gakiwa (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't she look at the ref?Gakiwa (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rawat group
please help what is the problem in Rawat Nursing college wikipage. and how i am doing correction in this wikipage. i am submitted many time but wikipedia deleted our content so please help how to change it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imjpunit (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Hi... my article on Wikipage "Rawat Public School, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur" is showing that it will be going on deletation. please say what is the problem in this page. its only showing informative. not look like promotional. what is the problem in this page/content. if any changes want this page. i will do but please help us which type of changes i will do. please help.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imjpunit (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First things first, have you been paid by anybody on behalf of Rawat Group for posting articles on their educational instituitions on en.wiki? Winged Blades Godric 06:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondly, each and every article on en.wiki needs to pass this notability guideline (i.e be covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources).None of your articles exhibit that.Also, existence/verifiability≠notability.The recourse thus left to us is to seek for deletion. Winged Blades Godric  06:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondly, each and every article on en.wiki needs to pass this notability guideline (i.e be covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources).None of your articles exhibit that.Also, existence/verifiability≠notability.The recourse thus left to us is to seek for deletion. Winged Blades Godric  06:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lithuania
Hello. I see you tagged this RfC as being a close you were working on some time ago. I don't want to create an edit conflict so I thought I'd check in to see if you were intending to post the close soon. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --✅.Thanks for reminding me! Winged Blades Godric 04:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for closing it! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sea Cliff Yacht Club
Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sea Cliff Yacht Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: hosting notable events indicates significance. Thank you.  So Why  11:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Billy Starr
No one can say that was overly hasty.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --But any-one can say that was overly late! Winged Blades Godric 15:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Too true. I get the sense there was a sea change during my absence. One I welcome.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Kindly let me know if you see something different in the AfD — usernamekiran (talk)   15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert
May I know the reason for that?It may not be my work but as that citation was not primary why u removed that? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Assuming you mean this edit, it's not a reversion! It was a copy-edit and the reasons are explicitly noted in the edit summary.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 08:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It ok but where that Editor sitush even after explaining all my citations,he told to wait for any others query but still not answering today??If u have enough time go through it(Reverted by dr.k)Completely cited and details are there in talk page and waiting for the reply by editor. Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing!Wait! Winged Blades Godric 08:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the reversion was correct.Here goes the reasons:--


 * Websites like [Gsbkonkani.net this] and this fails WP:RS.
 * Nagesh Shonde,Sangeeta M. Sonak,K suryanath etc. seems to be vanity authors--in absence of any disc/review of their works in reputed journals etc.
 * Prim. sources like PhD theses etc. fails WP:RS.

Given detail about Nagesh Shonde,M Sonak and suryakanth as per Indian govt aided publication branches.Hope u have read my explanation for that by the way how come whole article can be reverted for few bugs??? Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead should keep in talk for some time if not why do you guys allow us to edit better write as per your wish and read by yourself! Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --As to your first point, not all many books etc. published under the patronage of state literature parishads comply with guidelines at WP:RS.For your second query, WP:SANDBOX is a better place.I may be posting a detailed reply soon.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric  15:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot at last you proved my edit as perfect as my reference which was reverted by sitush was from government of india(Karnataka,Maharashtra and Goa) based govt added book references.Thanks for clearing my doubt.Now my work don't go waste:) Dr.Narasimha Prabhu (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ---Sorry, but you mis-understood me!I am once again repeating--The reversions of your edit(s) were perfect.I have eased my language a bit in my above reply.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 04:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Why my page is redirected?
New article has been redirected. Kindly help me how to overcome the issues and set it right.Frmanoj (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --Sorry, but the subject of the article hardly has any mention in reliable sources and lacks the notability to have a stand-alone article.And per our existing convention--we redirect such articles to the parent city.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 15:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned: Don't revert without discussion on talk. Where to carry out discussion? About the article: It's a prestigious management institute in India, has a history of 50 years. It is definitely worth to be in wikipedia, as the similar institutes already have entry in wikipedia. Kindly advice, how to proceed. Frmanoj (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ---But you have to provide WP:RS covering the subject.You may use your sandbox to develop the article.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 05:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD
I believe the user who made the page may engage in an edit war to keep the page as it is. To prevent that from happening, I decided to seek community consensus on such a move. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)