User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 6

Slate Star Codex AfD

Because the general notability guideline doesn't precisely define "significant coverage", I would appreciate it if you could answer the following two questions about your Delete comment in the Slate Star Codex AfD, to help me in future.

1. Could you describe what was it about the reliable sources that we cited in the article that made their coverage of Slate Star Codex not significant, in your view?

2. Can you give me an idea of what changes (e.g. more reliable sources, more in-depth coverage in a reliable source) would have changed your mind on this AfD - and what is the minimum you would require to change your mind?

For reference, the article has been automatically preserved by Deletionpedia here.--greenrd (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin closures at AFD

Personally I don't have a strong disagreement about the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peak Apartments but it's clearly not a suitable AfD for a Non-admin closure, having had a wide mixture of !votes. Similarly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Gallagher doesn't seem to have a clear consensus either. Best to avoid these sort of AfD closures, in my view. The guideline WP:NACD suggests to avoid them and the supplementary guide WP:NAC explicitly states this. Sionk (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Whilst the scope and ambit of NAC vary on an user-wide basis I would like to state the 1st AFD did not have a mixture of !votes but rather 2 comments (who did not specify their choice but pointed out that they were not for outright keep.), 3 redirects(with second-line choices included) and a lone Delete from you.Well, I believe NAC-s doesn't always have to be Snow-Keep and I was correct in applying a NAC closure.My reasoning almost goes the same line in the2nd case.Anyways, I will try to be more judicious regarding application of NACs in future.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I was going to leave you a similar message about the Islamo-Leftism AfD. It was a contentious discussion, with multiple policies cited by advocates on both sides, but you closed it with a single word. It was a bad AfD to choose (per the second bullet at WP:NACD) and a bad close (regardless of the result). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:--Well I believe your concern is entirely warranted and I will be adding the rationale for my closure as soon as I am back editing!But I think the result was ok! Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades ^Godric 17:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yo, I see you have already commmented

Here; see my question and link at the bottom of the page. Now I see you didn't get a reply. I don't think I will either. Notwithstanding AGF, but they have been here eight years, and have only ever edited their talk page three times. 233 articles (!!!), some are not bad, if a little vague and stubby, but some are verging on the spammy. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• My two cents--@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--With regards to your question on his talk page, my best bet is that this account is being run as an unauthorized bot on a pre-fixed schedule and manner.On a lighter note, the blanking assures he knows that there is something called Talk page on WP! Prob. all we can do is to keep a tab on his content-creation and prod/AfD the spammy ones.What's your thoughts?Winged Blades ^Godric 12:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I don't think one needs to offer one's two cents on one's own talkpage :p ;) yes on your other points. I'll chuck the bot-question an admin's way (someone technically-orientated, like User:BU Rob13, perhaps); in the meantime, how about a posse to go through the article list. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Sheriff, it won't be a bad idea.Am ready to have a go at the list!Let there be peace!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of town today but will look tomorrow (when I'll also be spending half a day in the library for RX requests!) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a look. No bot is sophisticated enough to generate that type of content creation, in my opinion, at least not something that isn't considerably more advanced than we're likely to find on Wikipedia. It's more likely they're writing the articles locally on their computer then copy-pasting them over rapidly. There are many examples of similar behavior in their edit history. Note that my explanation is observationally equivalent to writing articles locally and having a bot copy them over, so we can't rule that out, but we also will never be able to actually support any such assertion. If they're being disruptive with their article creations and refuse to slow down, there's some precedent (SvG) for the community imposing restrictions on how they may create articles (draft first, volume per day, etc). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

...And on the seventh day, he rested...

Thanks BU Rob13; yes, I've done something similar myself- having x- amount of tabs open and then hitting 'save' in quick succession. I think the communication issue might be a bigger problem: communication is pretty fundamental, and there seems to be- shall we say- somewhat of a dearth of it. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 07:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blah, blah, seventh day. I already got preached at enough yesterday. Out of the three plays I saw in the city, that one was by far the worst written. The acting was quite good, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Three plays in one day... Reviewing?! But in that case, no new article for TMRC then. I was just thinking, He rested on Sunday... But then, He doesn't work the RX desk :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No, just for enjoyment. The above linked play had the unusual start time of 4pm, so I managed to squeeze it in between the Off-Broadway matinee I managed to snag a free ticket to and the Broadway production of A Doll's House, Part 2. Now that's a red link that could use creating! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

April 1, 2017: Move or rewrite [1]?

Have fixed most technical issues with this draft... Does it need more of a rewrite before being moved/published? Please inform me how I may help improve this article. Thank you for your patience! Nordland73 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I have now corrected all red links and removed Norwegian reference errors :) Nordland73 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well,I'm on a mobile device and will definitely take a look tomorrow.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Nordland73 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI and question

Hello, thanks for the barnstar. First I noticed you're a native speaker of Bengali, then I noticed the text on your userpage was all bunched up between userboxes. I put a {{Clear}} on your page and that fixed the problem. My question: Is it "Pañcāśēr Manvantar" or "Pañcāśēr Manbantar" (or is there no phonemic distinction between "b" and "v")? Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lingzhi:--Thanks for helping out with the tag on the user page.Regretably, liguistics is not my cup of tea.Still, I managed to scrape thisout.Not sure if this helps you any way.Any other need regarding Bengali sources etc. and I will be glad to help.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that did help. Tks, and tks for the offer. Later!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Reigns closure

Hi, thanks for closing the RfC. Would you also consider closing Talk:Roman Reigns#Merger Proposal, which was the basis for the RfC?LM2000 (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@LM2000:--Just wait a moment or so!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help!LM2000 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Hello Winged Blades of Godrick,

Thanks for taking the time to review Draft:OKICA. I was wondering what you meant by "be more specific, if possible," and any other improvements you would suggest to obtain publishable status.

I mistakenly put this on the "Aruneek" page earlier. I have deleted that section and moved this text here.

Thanks!
Hwdirre (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hwdirre:--I am currently looking at the draft.Expect an answer soon.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

PujaShoppe

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PujaShoppe. As a bit of advice, I've found it is normally just easier and a bit more productive to take AfD than argue over it. If its not notable, it will get deleted and is protected against recreation via G4. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:---While I appreciate your endeavor, I fail to see any reason why it fails CSD. And all the more so when a person's insane insistence ((bolstered by a wholesome support his actions receive from one/two persons) that his personal and highly idiotic misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy shall preside over the opinion of almost every other editor on the project!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are wrong-- I like Adam, but I am certainly have a different view of CSD than him. I'm just saying that you really only have three options: 1) Complain on his talk page until someone else takes it to AfD or you do yourself. 2) Take it to AfD without the drama 3) ANI or another form of dispute resolution. Having been in your shoes here enough times in the past, I certainly sympathize, but for me, I've just found that option #2 is by far the easiest and least stressful for all involved. Just my 2¢, and not saying you've done anything wrong at all, but simply offering a perspective from someone who is sympathetic to both people involved :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

What the hell?!

Who the hell gave you the right to refactor my comments (and those of others), and to impose some structure on that Rfc that delegates my pivotal suggestion to some "detailed discussion" subsection? This is not allowed, and in addition promotes certain views over others. I undid all your edits. I hope you will now see that this was a mistake. Otherwise, you'll go straight to WP:ANI! Debresser (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Debresser: No need to fly off the handle- I think WBoG was following the suggestion in the information page. No harm, no foul- if everyone's comments are moved, then no-one's are prioritized. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:--Whilst you are obviously correct that there is no proper format for a RFC, it's the most widely employed so that the participants/closer culd get a rough appraisal of the consensus(if it exists!)You could be well assured that the closer would read through the entire discussion and necessarily your pivotal ones.Cheers!and I did not refactor you comments--I moved certain paragraphs of it to some subsection.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Mine was not a "comment", rather a counterproposal. I am Dailycare's main opponent on that issue, and Winged Blades of Godric delegated my counterproposal to a subsection, with the result being that it would have no chance. That really stroke against my feathers, because I worked hard on it. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric With all due respect, let's not go into the semantics if "I moved certain paragraphs of it to some subsection" is or isn't refactoring. I dont think others should touch my comments, and there is the issue I mentioned of giving it less chance. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that having some structure is good, but in this case an attempt was made to superimpose structure on an already existing Rfc. If my comment/counterproposal/explanation would be kept in one piece and before the survey section, I would have no problem with it. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I uncollapsed Debresser's rationale. The formatting is great, but I don't think this RfC is going to be so massive that we need to collapse comments. AniMate 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@AniMate:--I think the uncollapsing is perfect given that the length of the discussion is not too long.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple

Hello, Winged Blades. I'm one of your fellow volunteers over at Articles for Creation. I noticed that you tagged the above-named draft as "under review" three days ago, but there doesn't appear to have been any activity on it since then. Perhaps you forgot that you tagged it? I've left the tag in place and am writing just to remind you that the tag is still there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary:---Regrets! Entirely forgot it.Looking about the same right now.Thanks for the message!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kringggg...Kringggg...You're at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done and dusted.Some people seem to have a passionate liking for drama!My best wishes to them!Winged Blades ^Godric 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That must be it. Couldn't be that I actually had a point. :) Debresser (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Charanjeet Singh Sondhi

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charanjeet Singh Sondhi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: clearly claims significance: collaborated with notable artists, had music released by notable label, won competition on notable TV network. Thank you. SoWhy 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Neha Thakar

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Neha Thakar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. SoWhy 17:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi there. I noticed you have added a "font-size" property to your signature. Per WP:SIGAPP markup that changes a signature's size should be avoided since it disrupt the way that surrounding text displays. If also makes your signature stand out in discussions. As such, please remove this markup from your signature. Regards SoWhy 08:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

happened to see this From that policy it would seem that only very large letters, 200% or larger, should be avoided. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The "200%" is an example. Since WBoG uses a fixed size ("17px"), it might display larger or smaller, depending on user's custom CSS and browser settings; for example, if I set my browser's default font size to 10, his signature will display huge in comparison. When I set it to 50, the signature is tiny. In both cases, text flow is disrupted. There is really no sensible reason why one's signature should be larger than others because it will always make it stick out one way or anoter - which the signature policy discourages. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:--Thanks for your comment.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy:--Have done the necessary changes soon.See for yourself!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding! Regards SoWhy 06:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:19:33, 12 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Jt51

• Jt51 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:FEARnyc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing my draft for the page for FEARnyc. You say I need more verifiable sources but I have already cited The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and Time Out New York. These are three major independent publications. In addition, five long-running, verifiable blogs were also cited. What more are you looking for? Thank you! Jt51 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jt51:--Sorry, blogs are gen. not considered WP:RS.Ref-1 & 5 are their own website.Dread-central,Wicked-horror,Truly disturbing,Bloody-disgusting,Time-out.com etc. fails WP:RS.I have strong doubts on EW.com.NYT definitely passes WP:RS but i will not be accepting a draft on a single WP:RS.Please use additional WP:RS covering the festival.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

04:11:49, 13 April 2017 review of submission by Ironman1930

• Ironman1930 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lewis E. Hollander Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What more references can I provide? I give you Guinness Book of World records, I give you Marquis Who's Who twice and several American Physical Society references including four to Physical Review the most respected Journal in Physics, and the Hall of Fame in the American Endurance Ride Society, what more do you require? These are all very verifiable. I see many entries with very little verifiable references have been included. Thank you for your review.

@Ironman1930:--The draft could at best be described as a mess.Please see MOS:LAYOUT.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 2nd Post-progressive RfC

Appeal to change your closure

Hello, I take issue with the conclusion you reached here. I don't believe the RfC was properly conducted with a neutral POV in its opening statement. It falsely claims that the term post-progressive was "transformed into a noun" in the article in spite of the sources. In truth, I supplied plenty of reliable print sources that invoke the term as a noun (or noun-modifier); the RfC proposer just didn't accept them. It is only the editor's belief that the usage has changed. His/her reasoning was: ... it seems to imply that there was first a music genre called simply progressive (just as there was rock before post-rock, punk before post-punk etc.). ... which is correct. From "progressive music" and "rock music" came "prog-rock". And from that came "post-prog", "neo-prog", and "avant-prog". Given the above confusion, I don't believe the other voters (SW3 5DL and Damotclese) gave an informed opinion, and it shows - the reasoning behind their "No" vote makes no sense. They cite WP:OR, but it's more OR to insist that post-progressive is exclusively an adjective. No source suggests anything of the term's proper usage except that it's "a type of music". WP:CONSENSUS (emphasis added): "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." So, since there were no real counterarguments posed, I request that the conclusion be changed to "No consensus - seek further guidance on WP:MANUAL".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint:--A few of your arguments seem to be correct and I have added a line to my closure.On a side-note,I have little/no-view on your proposed validity of the sources and think that the arguments put forward by the discussants was valid enough.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Run in Red

Hey I reverted your redirect as it sends it to a DAB which doesn't even mention the person referred to in the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad:--Hmm....I realised my mistake almost immediately and have sent the article for speedy deletion.And within this short span of time, you are knocking at my talk-page!Too fast!Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And while you are here, thanks for the barnstar!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Neha Thakar

Hello Winged Blades of Godric would you consider taking Neha Thakar to AfD in stead of PROD? The article was created by a new user at an edit-a-thon. This is a good-faith effort by a new user, so I think a discussion over whether the subject is notable would be preferred to treating it as an uncontroversial deletion. I see no BLP violations, merely a question of notability. Would you agree? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mduvekot:-- Done-I wouldn't mind.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

BPD

I recently pinged several editors. They did not get a chance to respond. Can you put the closure on hold for 72 hours. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:-- Not done-Your behaviour-vault regarding the closure do not augur well to me and I decline it.As a side note, can you provide a diff. of your pinging several editors.I surely missed it.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

See here. There are two images under discussion. The close did not allow others to comment on the other image that was added to the article. Part of my last comment was not completely archived. The RfC was recently restarted. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:--Well, as to the image re-placement, re-open another RFC by re-pinging the participants.The last closure was reversed by the closer herself and as such do not interfere with my closure.Your last comment being not archived is wholly a technical problem.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is easier to continue with the same RfC than re-open a new one. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I will go ahead and undo the closure soon per WP:SILENCE. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:--And you will not!I am not bound to contimue an discussion with you as long as you deem necessary.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The close did not make it clear which image has consensus because two images were "under discussion". QuackGuru (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Changing the entire poser/question of the RFC will surely lead to a multitude of views given that there will be 3 options at hand(1 included after a fortnight) and the fact that many editors voting at RFCs are fly-by and don't feel the impetus to come back to a prev. topic.Anyway, pinging only specific users who has opposed the prev. proposal is bad editing as we don't know how the prev. supporters will vote in case of the new image.Cheers! Winged Blades ^Godric 13:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Clarified in explicit terms.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the close. If there is no objection to the current less graphic image then there is no need to start another RfC per silent. QuackGuru (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...whispered the Sounds of Silence... ;) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

15:26:38, 8 April 2017 review of submission by TGSTINT

• TGSTINT (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jennifer Turner (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - i dont understand why the article is rejected again. I dont see how a musician playing on an album that reached #10 on the Billboard Hot 100, that played in a band on an album reaching # 35 in Top Heatseekers (numbers according to the wiki articles) and in some other bands with "prominent" other musicians (most covered by wiki articles already) - whose biography can be covered by multiple articles of reliable media is not notable - and besides that also had her "own" bands/label as frontwomen (which where not that successfull - saleswise/chartwise). But thats my personal view.

To get to your reason of declining my article: I dont get it and i cant find a reason underlining the rejectian in the guidelines. I handchecked each author of each article to match the criterias as mentioned in the criteria for musicians and ensembles (only one excluded is no4 with scan of the album cover) Everyone is either published by a source well know for its reliability - like the new york times, the guardian or noisey/vice - or/and written by professional journalists who have a history in music journalism. For each author i used references from i checked and you can find these infos - one even has her own wikipedia page which i could link to. So i have multiple reliable sources covering in detail and directly her biographical appearances over the years (of cource as a band member it is not about her alone - but also the band itself - which is according to the golden rule you linked: signifant coverage. For most of the bands you can already find an existing article also mentioning her - ready to be linked. So i dont get what more can be done to show notability, reliability and significance. Can you please show me how a reference that covers the reasons for the rejections of mine for a musician not everyone knows (means no awards, golden records etc) should look like?? I reviewed several wikipedia pages for musicians with similar agenda - and none showed references that differed much from mine - most even worse (in my opinion). But i really dont get what kind of source you are refering to. So please give an example if possible - as i can not see how my references can be better matching the criterias needed - as far as i see the guidelines - they already do.

But besides that i now added references from books and magazines - and will resubmit with that as those should even more cover the notability.

Collapsing

Hi, Boing! said Zebedee has fixed one problem with your collapsing at Talk:Raheja_Developers#Improvements_to_the_Raheja_Atharva.2C_Gurgaon_section but there seems still to be something amiss. I've just started a new talk page section there but it is background-coloured as if it is part of the collapsed section. I suspect there is an unclosed template somewhere but I've never seen such a complex use of collapse/comment template before - I just use {{cot}} and {{cob}}. Can you spot the problem? - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush:-- Done-@NeilN:--That was damn fast!I saw the problem, went to edit the page and lo! you corrected it!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Dua

Can you please revert your WP:BADNAC there? This closure is contentious, AND it is a close call. Also, it looks more like a WP:SUPERVOTE than a proper closure.Burning Pillar (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@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.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

04:50:59, 19 April 2017 review of submission by Gitakrishna

• Gitakrishna (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jugpreet Bajwa (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@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 ^Godric 05:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to contact if you need any more advice/help.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• 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:-

Extended content

1) Ref 1 fails WP:RS. 2) Ref 2 hardly establishes notability.An award which was given to a sheer 60, 000 people do not make every one of them notable! 3)Ref 3 do not establish notability. )Ref 4 can't be considered as a WP:RS.See WP:INTERVIEW. )Ref 5 fails WP:RS. )Ref 6 establishes little, (if any) notability and that's again a WP:BLP1E. )Ref-7 do not establish notabiklity beyond WP:BLP1E. )Ref 8 is plainly avertorial/promotional in nature esp. givwn the concerns of paid-advertising news with Indian media outlets.

Thus, I have re-declined the draft and believe that it's just WP:TOOSOON.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mamata Banerje

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)

@59.97.83.156:--See WP:WEIGHT.Also, a fact can be conveyed in thousand different manners.Cheerio!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And please create an user-account given that your IP is remarkably dynamic and our memories are not so good!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

10:17:15, 19 April 2017 review of submission by TGSTINT

• TGSTINT (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jennifer Turner (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit: my recent resubmission of the article was just accepted - so no longer an answer needed. thx and have a nice day

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One driver numbers (2nd nomination)

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)

@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 ^Godric 10:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

 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 ^Godric 11:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Tvx1:--Nicely turned out! I dare say I seem to know a little about AFD proceedings.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, see this AFD closed by an admin as an example that pure votes and pernoms are generally ignored.Tvx1 11:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania:-Replied by mail.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Got it and shot right back. Will wait for your reply. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:16:23, 25 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Andrevolk

• Andrevolk (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:UGV Interoperability Profile (UGV IOP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

@Andrevolk:--While the sources pass WP:RS convincingly, they mostly fall under the purview of technical/research papers and fails to convince me that it passes WP:GNG.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:--Thanks for your feedback. Again, I have added some references and hope I can convince you this time. Especially the sources [2],[3],[7] and [11] are independent secondary sources and show, that the topic is generally notable and not just limited to the techie people, who work on the topic. From my perspective, the notability of IOP is comparable to STANAG 4586 or JAUS, which both were deservedly approved for having their own Wikipedia articles. Andrevolk (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC rules

Where did you hear this idea that efforts at improving articles need to stop during an RFC? Speaking as someone who has maintained WP:RFC and associated pages for almost a decade, I am certain that there is no such rule. If there's some essay or other page that claims this, then I'd like to know where it is, so we can fix it. (If it's just a rumor you heard, then it's probably hopeless, but at least you'll know now.)

Please {{ping}} me with any reply; I'm not keeping up with my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing::-Well,this states:--

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.

And for your kind information, I did not ever say whether the edits were helpful/unhelpful.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 06:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You singled out two editors and told them that they were formally "advised to refrain from making changes to specific article content under discussion in a RFC, prior to it's [sic] closure". Your statement did not differentiate between helpful edits (which WP:RFC supports), and it additionally implied that even if the group has reached a clear consensus, that they should all sit on their fingers until you come along and tell them what they already know.

WP:RFC, by contrast, says, "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. [emphasis in the original] Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance" – including, but not limited to, a closing statement from an uninvolved editor.

I know that the English Wikipedia is an overly complicated place, with constant WP:Instruction creep. For most newer editors, the only rules they know were passed along to them in a telephone game. That's why we have to work so hard to prevent RFCs from turning into some sort of bureaucratic game. RFCs are normal talk-page discussions with normal talk-page rules; the only true difference is that RFCs have an advertising mechanism. So if you wouldn't tell a group of highly experienced editors and admins that they shouldn't edit an article while they're talking about it normally, then you shouldn't tell them that they shouldn't edit an article while while they're talking about it with an RFC advertisement template pasted into the top of the discussion section.

If there is actual disruption, then that's a matter for ANI. RFC closing statements are not appropriate places for judging users' behavior.

(Side note: We don't cross paths often, so you probably don't have any basis for guessing what I want from you. Here's what I want: Please avoid this mistake in the future. That's it. I explicitly don't want a mea culpa speech, and I'm not asking you to strike your comments. I just want you to have the information that you need to do better next time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Vanjari caste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vanjari_caste(2) Can you please review the draft.. if there need any change ask me to do it..

and if this is fine then please move it to article

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by India1277 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@India1277:-- Not done.Concerns remain same as before.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

	Thanks for trying
	Thanks for trying. I'm sorry about the walls; nevertheless, the process clarified a couple of things. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

AFC "under review"

Just noticed that you've got a handful of AFC pages as marked under review. Didn't want you to forget about them! Primefac (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac:--Reviewing them right now!Thanks for the reminder!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)