I am Godric. I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm always happy to help. Alternatively, type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.
Hi, Thanks for reviewing the article. I understand biographies of living ppl is difficult. I have tried keeping to the norms with the help of people whom i know and some really helpful ones on Wikipedia.
Could you please give some suggestions when you find some time.? Thank you
Naepin (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Burning Pillar:--Not done-- Dua has umpired 5 Women's One Day International cricket matches.Read the first point of WP:NCRICKET.Harrias's vote seemed to be on the premise that he was a domestic-level umpire (due to an apparent lack of sources)--which now stands refuted.And an ARFD discussion is not the right place to assert the presumption of notability in WP:NCRICKET seems to be false.Winged Blades Godric04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
04:50:59, 19 April 2017 review of submission by Gitakrishna
@Gitakrishna:--Sorry, but I don't get your point.I simply declined the draft and moved it to a different name in the draft-space per WP:MOS and draft-naming conventions.And these actions could be taken unilaterally irrespective of views of another AFC reviewer.And I didn't delete anything.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric05:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reply to 'Winged Blades of Godric': Please view the "Note by Author" at the beginning of the Draft Article on Jugpreet. I hope the following would clarify my point, please. If an athlete wins a Gold Medal in Commonwealth Games, he is a notable person -- even if there is no other ‘Reference’ to him except the one on the official website of Commonwealth Games. Similarly, when out of almost half the population of the World (the total population of Commonwealth Countries is about half the World’s population) the Queen of England, who heads the Commonwealth, selects Jugpreet Bajwa for an Award, and the 'Reference' to the said Award is available on the official website of the Governor General of Canada, then Jugpreet is a noteworthy (notable) person. Moreso, the 2nd Runners up of the popular International Reality Music Show ‘Sa Re Ga Ma Pa 2016’ (whose Judges & Jury Members are well-known Singers, Music Composers & Lyricists in Bollywood -- the second largest Film-Industry in the World) is surely a noteworthy person -- Jugpreet was the 2nd Runners up in the said Competition. In the instant case, one Commentator says that 'Notability' has been established, but another had differed earlier (albeit when certain ‘References’ were not cited), i.e. there was a one-to-one tie. Hence, please place this Article for a discussion amongst Senior Editors -- considering that I am a Senior Editor/ Peer-Reviewer of 3 prestigious International Academic Research Journals, including the one that is published for Cambridge University (UK); these Journals are cited as reliable "sources" for secondary research (for PhD & Post-PhD Programmes) whereas Wikipedia is not considered such a source by the International Research Community. Thanks in Advance! Gitakrishna
@Gitakrishna:--With due respect to your credentials, I sincerely feel you have a host of misinformation about our editorial procedures here.Frankly, AFC articles are never-ever placed for discussion among senior editors.If we are to discuss 893 articles in draft-space for a comprehensive community-review, all of us could leave the mainspace for good!The judgement of an AFC reviewer is considered to be final for the time-being.In your reference to discussions you are probably quoting WP:AFD, which is a mechanism to quality-control the articles which are in main-space.
Coming to the subject of this discussion, no I don't believe 2nd runners-up of these spinging reality shows whuch are spawning like anything in India--is notable beyond WP:BLP1E.As to Jugpreet Bajwa, specifically--this is an analysis of sources:-
I just want to know what did you find that makes the calcutta high court's order , non neutral. I have read many articles on Wikipedia. I think that wikipedia is not just about praising someone but also to tell the facts that exist. It is a fact that the bengal government took the decision of banning the durga puja immersion after 4pm. And the Court said that is Muslim appeasement. You can read the pages of other politicians like Shivraj Singh Chauhan, yogi adityanath, Mulayam Singh etc. Some of them even have a seperate section like" corruption ", " controversy" and have all the events related to that person. So please explain to me how is info added by me on Mamata Banerjee's page non-neutral.
59.97.83.156 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your assessment of this above deletion discussion is correct. You didn't leave an explanation why you think the result is a keep and I'm left with the impression you made a simple head count. That should never be done. Per the AFD instructions you should assess the strength of all the arguments and given their correct weight in the decision. The reality here is that none of the "Keep" contributors provided a meaningful policy or guideline-bases reason why they think the article should have been kept. Three of the five were even simply votes without any explanation why it should be kept. When two of them were queried about them they either didn't reply at all our didn't reply with anything meaningful. From one of the replies it was even obvious that the keep voter had not idea what the contested article deals with. Since the keep "camp" didn't provide strong arguments and thus should not carry much weight, I will kindly request you to overturn your decision.Tvx1 10:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1:Not done--No, the AFD hardly violates WP:NOTVOTE.Many AfD frequentees simply put it as !vote-Per Mr. X. in numerous deletion arguments to save time.That does not discount their votes from consideration but simply means that his/her view has essentially concurred with someone's and that there's litle point in repeating/copy-pasting the same argument again.And no one is obligated to satify the nom by answering his/her queries in an AFD.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric10:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know these "votes" often appear but that doesn't mean they're OK. If one agrees with someone else's argument and don't see the need to copy it or add an own reason then one shouldn't contribute at all. The other persons' argument is there anyway and receives its consideration. This why WP:NOTVOTE exists in the first place. Votes should never be given much consideration. If such someone declines to give a justified reasoning even after being querying it is obvious that their intention was simple to raise the number of contributions for a certain and side and such a vote should simply be discarded. If you reduce the consideration of the keep votes here, as you should do, little meaningful arguments remain in the keep camp and this why I sincerely once again request you to overturn your decision.Tvx1 11:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done--If one agrees with someone else's argument and don't see the need to copy it or add an own reason then one shouldn't contribute at all.---I frankly did not know such a principle/policy exists here that justifies your assumption that every contributor to a discussion shall make up his/her own argument to participate in a del. discussion.Thus, due to a percieved absence of any policy that tells me to discount such !votes and that being neither the normal way of doing things at AFD, I see little reason to change my closure.Anyway, if you could provide me a policy which instructs closers to ignore such !votes, I will more than happily reverse my closure.Winged Blades Godric11:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERNOM and WP:USEFUL as to why four of the five keep contributions should not have been given much consideration. See also the first two bullet points of the second group of bullet points in WP:DISCUSSAFD. It really surprises me that someone who seems to know so little about AFD proceedings would even consider closing an AFD and insists on having made a good close when obvious flaws in their action are exposed.Tvx1 11:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the best fact remains that that it is an essay; not a principle/policy and WP:PERNOM do not ask the closer to discount !votes---it's merely an guide to make an AFD discussion ideal from all spheres.Also, it asserts If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's/{prev. voter's(my addition)} argument may be sufficient.Seriously, if you assert that we discount all arguments listed at WP:AADD in future WP:AFD discussions, it's better we AfD the AfD process alltogether! And not surprisingly, your nomination and the lone delete !vote also fails the mountain-esque barrier of WP:AADD.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric
See, there's the problem. You clearly apply guidelines by what you would like them state. The passage quoted does not mention endorsing a previous voter's rationale, you added that yourself. You shouldn't do that. Since you are not up for sensible discussion, I have asked for a deletion review of List of Formula One driver numbers. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tvx1 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DRN
Hey, since you've opened the case Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity, I thought It's best not to interfere but mentioning here instead - the opening summaries by a few users seem to be a beginning of personal attacks. Also, about the SPI comment, there's no open SPI and the tag was not placed by any involved editor so the case is still valid, though I'd suggest keeping an eye for a potential sock puppet. I'd have warned and made these notes myself but since you've opened the case, I thought It's best for you to know. I'd say you've put your hands on a bag of worms. By the way, on a more personal note, even I'm from Kolkata. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have just modified my first Wikipedia page about the UGV IOP according to the remarks from your review. I hope, that the references, which I have added, now show the notability of the topic better. If you had the time to have a quick look on the page again and give me some feedback, I would be happy.
Andrevolk (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
