User talk:Renamed user qh37rbwki62h19772b

AfC submissions Random submission

2+ months

1,295 pending submissions to update

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Non-admin close

Say, thanks for closing the debate on the Pony Club article. I was curious - how do non-admin closures work? Is there a policy you can point me to? (I'd like to do this, some of those AfDs linger forever generating more heat than light). Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, there is a section in the deletion policy, and this servers as a general guide. In short, NACs are performed by editors that are not involved once the AfD has run its course of seven days and if there is a clear consensus for any non-admin action (though they can be closed early if the consensus is unlikely to change). This is an amazing script that does all the work in just three clicks. It also helps in relisting the discussion. Cheers, — Yash! ^(Y) 06:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that a lot of AfDs that could be closed as keep get relisted... your thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have seen few AfDs with only keep votes getting relised which end up closing as delete or merge/redirect. Such occurance is rare but it does happen. The major factor considered while closing or relisting is the weight of the arguments. If the nomination has some solid policy based arguments and the votes for keeping are not compelling enough, a relist is done to get a wider perspective. I have found most, almost all the relists to be quite reasonable. Yes, at times AfDs are relisted that could be closed. For example, I would have closed the Zephyr Wright AfD instead of relisting it. I believe such is done at the time just to be on the safer side but relists like that can be an unnecessary addition to the logs where we already suffer from lack of participation. — Yash! ^(Y) 08:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff listed at AfD is material that reflects the recentism problem of WP - anything or anyone more than 50 years old will not easily be found with Google hits. And the Zephyr Wright article was an obvious speedy keep for anyone who knows squat about the Civil Rights Era. I get so frustrated with these WP:CHEESE arguments by the ignorant - while in the meantime some fool who played one season of cricket for Manchester gets GNG easily. (whining...) Montanabw^(talk) 03:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about. It is especially difficult to find sources for India related articles. Sometimes it even gets hard to find online source for the topics that are notable at present. And to prove that the people or stuff that were the talk of the town back then are notable enough presents a very tough job. Add that to a busy life and it just gets really tiresome. BTW, I heard some birds chirp about you running for an RfA? I just want to say that I would support you if you ran. You have been working hard in the main space for nine bloody long years! That is simply amazing. The scrutiny you might receive there is something that an editor like you most certainly does not deserve. I have seen people literally leave this project after their unsuccessful RfAs and I will not like to see an editor like you go. Still, one cannot really predict what could go down at an RfA. If you are determined enough, go for it but do give that some thought. — Yash! ^(Y) 10:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I AM thinking about an RfA and would value support from as many people as possible. The main thing I fret about are the trolls that might come out of the woodwork with various complaints about how I have, over the course of my wiki-tenure, been an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet - especially to them - or worse yet, my efforts to maintain quality control are WPOWNERSHIP! WPOWNERSHIP! LOL! I basically know that I'll need supporters willing to do more than !vote because there will only be so much I can say in my own defense without looking unfit for the mop. Montanabw^(talk) 18:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Over the course of time one might make a lot of enemies, but not without making more valuable friends. Oppose votes go through a lot of discussion regardless of the candidate's popularity so that certainly shouldn't be a problem with yours. — Yash! ^(Y) 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(fs)..I always thought you were an 'Evil reptilian kitten-eater'. But, I didn't realize you were 'from another planet'. At my un-successful bid for RfA I was given the good advice by "DB" not to overly defend myself...let my supports speak in my behalf. I didn't make the cut but it was still good advice. . Buster Seven Talk 13:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Actually, I dont know if those words are true but, thank you. —Prashant 03:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Prashant!, if I know you well, one quality about you is that you have always improved from your experiences. Don't feel bad about the incident and take it as constructive criticism. Happy editing! — Yash! ^(Y) 07:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Kerala

Hey! I saw that the Kerala article GA nomination was failed due to bad references. I have fixed the broken links and added a few citations. Please continue - your help in bringing up the article's quality would be invaluable. --Winjay (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Winjay I appreciate your efforts. The nomination was premature and I didn't work on the article after returning from a two year break. The article has changed a lot in that period. I have my preliminary exams till 5 June and once I am done with it, I will go through the article in detail. I will do my best to make it a GA. Thanks a lot for your edits, it made my work a lot easier :) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Nominations

Thanks for your recent additions at a well-regarded award page. I just wanted to let you know that both your nominations will surely be seconded. I usually wait till the end of two weeks and if no-one has commented, I "vet" them myself and move them into "Accepted". Just so you know.... . Buster Seven Talk 13:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A follow-up to that comment: I just seconded one of your nominations. But I wondered if you want to modify that nomination? You said they had done very little editing this year, but that is no longer the case; they have been very busy improving and expanding articles, including one on my watchlist. Maybe you could just delete that sentence from your nom? --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I did get a bit worried there. And that is very kind of you Buster7, I very much appreciate it :) BTW, apologies for piling up nominations; I didn't realise that there was a big line of editor already.

Thanks a lot MelanieN for your third ;) I removed the part and I am glad to see him back. — Yash! ^(Y) 17:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sargodha

Hi Yash!I am ALIWARIS514, I've provided sourced material in article Sargodha. So, please please please don't remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALIWARIS514 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Heyo ALIWARIS514 and thank you for your edits. You did provide sources for your claims made but I am afraid they weren't reliable sources. Sources like WordPress are something anyone could make up so they are not reliable and not used. You will need to find sources such as mentions by the official authority, in newspaper articles, journal entries or books. I will not be reverting you again but I suggest you remove the sources you used and find something reliable. Again, I appreciate you editing Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Yash! ^(Y) 10:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Renamed user qh37rbwki62h19772b. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@DipankanUpgraded! ^{Tag me!} 17:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)