Jump to content

User Talk:Winged Blades of Godric

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.79.205.162 (talk) at 15:25, 1 June 2017 (→‎RFC to include SRS in Controversial Reddit Communities). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to My Talk Page!


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.

Resources

Finding your way around:

Need quick help?

Let's get a bit more detailed

How you can help:

Do's and Dont's

If you need further help:
  Ask a question
 or you can:
  Get accustomed
 or you can:
IRC  get live help at IRC
 or even:
  Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Final reminders

  • 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.


Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:Huggle
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #216


Please sign your message.


AfC Backlog

Level 11
Level 11

High backlog (4+ months) at AFC.
There are currently 3,105 pending submissions.
[view • purge • update]

.


Hi - regarding my article on Prof Dr Suresh David

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]

@Naepin:--Will be replying soon.Winged Blades Godric 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, waiting for your reply

Naepin (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian articles in translation

Hi Winged Blades, and thanks for your offer to help out with some translated articles. What we're looking for mostly, is your opinion on the quality of these translations, meaning: do they faithfully render the Hindi/Bengali into English? We're not so concerned on the quality of the English, the notability, sourcing the truth of the claims made or anything else, just whether the translations are accurate. (You could answer, yes/no, or Green/yellow/red, or 1-100% or however you want. Also, don't feel you have to update any of the articles unless you wish to; the main need here is for an assessment of translation accuracy as it stands now. Here's the list (Bengali, unless noted):

  1. INS_Vajrakosh (hindi)-- Done--All good!Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Titram (hindi)-- Done--Ok!Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sardar_Panchhi (punjabi)--- Not done---Don't know Punjabi!Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Harunur_Rashed-- Done---Fails WP:GNG.Prodded.Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dhaka_University_Debating_Society
  6. Maharani_Hemanta_Kumari_Debi-- Done---Fails WP:GNG.AFD-ed.Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agrabad#Agrabad Access Road (just the one section)
Here are two more, if you have the time:

Thanks! You can either leave comments here about them, or if you wish to add comments directly to the big list, you can go to WP:CXT/PTR to see the kinds of comments translator/editors are making on these items, and add your comments there, if you prefer. Also, what is INS? Is it, Indian Naval-something? The 'S' ought to have been a "B" for "Base", I would have thought. Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot:INS means --Indian Naval Ship.Anyway,plan to review the lot by today.Winged Blades Godric 05:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought it might mean, only Ship doesn't make any sense in this context; why would they call a naval base an INS? INS Vajrakosh isn't a ship, it's a naval base, right? Seems like it ought to be INB, so I still don't get it; I can read Devanagari, so I know what a hindi 'sa' (स) looks like, but that doesn't help. Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot:Sorry--I went for the more prevalent full form!Actually ,in this context it means Indian naval station.Winged Blades Godric 05:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you. Curiosity satisfied; I'll sleep better tonight!  ;-) Mathglot (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on reviewing any of the list of articles above? There's no obligation, of course, but there is a ticking clock on this project, so if you do wish to help out, we have less than three weeks to do so. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot::--That's the progress so far!Winged Blades Godric 03:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps, and keep 'em coming! Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric:Can I send you a few more? Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot:--Surely!Why not?!Winged Blades Godric 07:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done:--I see little need.Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seen.Winged Blades Godric 07:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Prob. post it here by morrow afternoon.(GMT +5:30)Winged Blades Godric 07:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Calhoun

Hi there, thanks for your work on AFDs.

I wanted to feed back to you on your relist of the above AFD. Per WP:RELIST, "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice." The above AFD has had substantial comment — relisting isn't used for breaking a tie, and this should be a no-consensus closure. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle::--Oops! That was a mistake.Your advice is earnestly appreciated.Go raibh maith agat!Winged Blades Godric 02:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camatkarasana

[1]

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)[reply]

@Gakiwa::--As to the first website, see WP:COPYRIGHT.The second website fails WP:RS.Winged Blades Godric 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ananda Balasana: yogajournal.com has this asana as well as [2], enough?Gakiwa (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@Imjpunit::--
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Talk:Lithuania#RfC:_Lithuania_in_the_USSR_debate

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)[reply]

@Eggishorn::-- Done.Thanks for reminding me!Winged Blades Godric 04:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for closing it! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. SoWhy 11:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Starr

No one can say that was overly hasty.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim::--But any-one[citation needed] can say that was overly late!Winged Blades Godric 15:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

14:25:19, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Michael Dobson


Dear Winged Blades of Godric,

I'm not so much requesting a re-review of my submission, but rather to ask for your help and advice to correct its deficiencies. In declining the submission, you wrote, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability...[p]lease improve the submission's referencing." As you suggested, I have located additional references for the submission, but before rewriting I thought I'd inquire what level of information I would need to supply to achieve the notability requirement.

At the present time, the major references are: two Washington Post front page articles at the time of the shooting, two major follow-up pieces in the Post about the 40th anniversary of the shootings, and an interview in the New York Times. There is also a book on the subject (which I wrote/edited — I did not use the book in any citations both to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest as well as to avoid falling afoul of the "no original research" rule) and a movie in production. (The film is being produced by best-selling author George Pelecanos, who also produced the TV series The Wire. I have no connection to the film other than having met the writer/director Joe Hall because of our mutual connection to the event.)

I did not cite the website Websleuths.com, which has an extensive piece on Michael Pearch, the shooter. There are several additional sources I did not list because the information in them was duplicative of what I'd already cited. In particular, Major General Clifford Stanley, later Undersecretary of Defense, husband of one of the victims, Rosalyn Stanley, has been the subject of various newspaper articles during his career, during which he almost always referenced the shooting of his wife. I cited an Associated Press wire story that was published in newspapers nationwide at the time of the original shooting, but only cited one of the papers in which the (identical) article appeared, and chose that because it was available through the Google News Archive. Would citing multiple appearances of the same information be relevant to the claim of notability, or would it simply be redundant?

Your note also says that I must provide "clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia," which I assume is a criterion separate from the various media mentions of the event and its aftermath. On review of my own submission, I see that I didn't give any particular reason for notability in the opening paragraph. Would that be a meaningful addition?

As far as other material that might establish notability, in addition to the 40th anniversary Post articles, the book, and the film, I could add that criminologist Grant Duwe, author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History, commented on the case because of the coincidence that one of the victims in Wheaton had a best friend who was one of the victims of the Charleston Church Shootings (for which a Wikipedia page exists). As the US government only began tracking shootings such as this in 1976 (the shootings took place in 1975), Duwe identified it as an element necessary for researchers trying to piece together the US's mass shootings timeline. (Duwe is cited in the Post retrospective, but not mentioned in my article draft.)

Am I on the right track here, or is there something I'm missing? Any advice you can give me would be much appreciated.

By the way, I notice you live near Kolkata. One of the other books I publish under my Timespinner Press imprint is From Plassey to Pakistan by Humayun Mirza, chronicling the Mughal rulers of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa from the days of Aliverdi Khan through the last Nawab Nazim, Mansur Ali Khan, whose grandson Iskander Mirza became the first president of Pakistan following Partition.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you about how I can improve this piece to make it suitable for Wikipedia. You can reach me through the talk page, or email me directly at either michael@dobsonbooks.com, or professionally at editor@timespinnerpress.com.

Regards,


Michael Dobson

AfD

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

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)[reply]

@Dr.Narasimha Prabhu: --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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seeing!Wait!Winged Blades Godric 08:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.Narasimha Prabhu: Well, the reversion was correct.Here goes the reasons:--
A discussion of sources
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Dr.Narasimha Prabhu:--As to your first point, not all many books etc. published under the patronage of state literature parishads don't 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Dr.Narasimha Prabhu:---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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Frmanoj:--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Frmanoj:---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)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Domdeparis's talk page.
Message added 06:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

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)[reply]

Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory

Hi Winged Blades of Godric, could you revisit your close at Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory? I take issue with the claim that "arguments raised by the opposers seem much more grounded in facts and policies"; in reality, virtually all discussion of policy was by supporters; few if any of the opposers discussed policy at all. Additionally, before you closed there was a response to one of my comments (that messed up the formatting of my comment) and I'd like a chance to respond. Thanks.--Cúchullain t/c 13:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric&oldid=783327527"