User talk:Winged Blades of Godric

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #186

Please sign your message.

Find a random AfC submission

A belated welcome!(albeit by myself!)

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ARUNEEK. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ARUNEEK , what's your age ? Rajkabir234 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

About Terms and Conditions

Can you tell about useful Terms and condition in brief . Rajkabir234 (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rajkabir234:Replied in your talk.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:00, 2 December 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

@Tahia Akter Chowdhury:-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.

• 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

Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:20:47, 14 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Etan J. Tal

• Etan J. Tal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Williamson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

@Etan J. Tal:--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:--

Extended content
Source analysis
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)

@Etan J. Tal: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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
8,286		Indian rupee (talk)	Add sources
682		Windows ME (talk)	Add sources
237		Yelagiri (talk)	Add sources
1,464		Shout Out to My Ex (talk)	Add sources
91		UN mediation of Kashmir (talk)	Add sources
129		Christmas Queens (talk)	Add sources
163		Jammu Division (talk)	Cleanup
22		Abu Hanifa Dinawari (talk)	Cleanup
1,828		Pseudoscience (talk)	Cleanup
169		Crypt of the NecroDancer (talk)	Expand
236		Ram Kadam (talk)	Expand
3,252		Adobe Photoshop (talk)	Expand
1,461		Polymer banknote (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,055		Gautam Adani (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
216		Tron (franchise) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
229		Auxiliary memory (talk)	Merge
203		Temporary tattoo (talk)	Merge
307		Family tree of Ali (talk)	Merge
2,485		Secondary school (talk)	Wikify
92		Calypso (comics) (talk)	Wikify
52		Catholic Church in Spain (talk)	Wikify
2		Sengge-La (talk)	Orphan
600		Reserve Bank of India: Working and Functions (talk)	Orphan
5		Ginger Lerner-Wren (talk)	Orphan
5		Hira Public School (talk)	Stub
311		The Income-tax Act, 1961 (talk)	Stub
525		Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana (talk)	Stub
772		Bex Taylor-Klaus (talk)	Stub
203		Manoj Sinha (talk)	Stub
16		Railway Schools (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traian Vuia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Traian Vuia. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 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)

@Chandan Guha:-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)

Please comment on Talk:Milky Way

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milky Way. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 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)

(edit conflict)@Tristippie:-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 Chris troutman 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)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 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)

@Volunteer Marek:--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#RfC_for_title_and_content_focus 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)