User talk:Winged Blades of Godric

This user may have left Wikipedia. Winged Blades of Godric has not edited Wikipedia since July 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, I'd like to ask you to take a look at this page and tell me if everything's fine and it can be published on Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhentic . Thank you very much! Best, Rayna --Rayna Vasileva (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have moved the article Kumar Swami to draft.

I am not being paid for anything on Wikipedia. My discussion with Harshil got heated because he was trying to dictate the tone of the article without discussing any details. I wrote this article passionately since it's my first article on Wikipedia. But to be clear once again, I have no association with the subject of the article. I already told in my discussion that I am ready to improve the article if someone guides me to. I will still improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Regarding the reliability of sources, why do you think that sources are not reliable ? They are from well reputed newspapers and official government websites. I would appreciate if you will guide me which references are unreliable in your view.

What else this draft needs in order to be able to be included in article space ??

I have seen many articles on Wikipedia which are much shorter than mine, have much less references and have lesser quality of references than the ones I have used.

I guess the reason that you have moved the article to draft is because of my heated discussion with Harshil, for which I have already apologized.

I find it unfair that such a well researched article which was earlier accepted has now been moved to draft.

Please reconsider your decision of reverting the article to draft. The references are indeed reliable and independent. I request you to again have a thorough look. I will keep working on improving the quality of the content but I feel it should be in the article space.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princehr999 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you end up fixing ICPH's querry with the updated syntax? I fixed a query once before but it's not my strength and if you've already done it all the better. I would like to go through and actually do the removal of anyone who has been inactive on Wikipedia a year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, In June Xaosflux removed a few, so he knows the regex to update the list Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: we regularly remove "special groups" that have 12 month complete inactivity, as of right now the only users that are in the "patroller" group exceeding 12 months of editing activity are secondary accounts of admins. Is that what you are looking in to? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, it was. Good to know that this already happens without any help from me. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Akiwo Arakawa and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Akiwo Arakawa, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain:-That's a poor decline; are you aware of WP:NACADEMIC? I would have moved that to main-space myself, if I did not have a COI.

Hyperbolick, thanks for your work! ∯WBG^converse 14:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, nothing beats waking up and having something called "poor" you did on Wikipedia...first for everything in 14 years. And they wonder why newbies don't stick around. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: I'm sorry, if that was the first message you saw today:-( On an aside, as someone who has been here for over 4 years with about 40,000 edits, me thinks that rejecting policy-compliant articles from newbies also affect editor-retention, negatively. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... I just stumbled on this thread. Highly significant in the light of current events. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kudpung: What current events? What significance? Can't tell if you intend positively or negatively. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are doing well. Please can you review this section? It seems to have a different meaning. Previously it was  [[1]]. Now it is [[2]]. It seems like the very edits based on your discussion here [[3]] are reverted. Thanks.

WP:BLP applies even to non biographies if the article talks about actions by people still living-- or allegations against them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it. After my own harrowing, I'm much more sensitive to this than before. Of course, as I learned watching Law and Order, the best way to avoid an accusation of impropriety is to avoid the appearance there of. So I will almost always advocate for the removal of unsavory content when it is challenged.-- Deepfriedokra 13:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored my support comment that you refer to in Fram's RfA. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you decided to edit-war on Nadja Malacrida. I believe you are mistaken in your actions and conclusions, and I am formally warning you that further edit-warring may lead to a block. I sincerely hope that it will not come to that. Removing sourced content is rarely a constructive edit, and your efforts would be better directed to proposing alternate wording on the talk page in an effort to find common ground over how best to summarise what Tinniswood wrote. --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, I don't give a flying fuck about your warning and this passive-aggresive BS.

Also, the last revert was by Giano, pending which I made a thread at 3RRN and added more stuff to the t/p section, which sufficiently indicates that I am not going to edit-war. ∯WBG^converse 14:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Godric, if the best response to a perfectly reasonable piece of advice is "I don't give a flying fuck" then you're running the risk of getting blocked. In particular, I haven't really seen you voice any opinion on the content, but just make vague hand-waving comments about policies. For example, consider your edit here. You removed a bunch of information about Malacrida's husband as "irrelevant" (okay, but in whose opinion?) and citing WP:REFBOMB which makes no sense given the account of Piero's interior design writing is cited to a single book source. In particular, removing the source and replacing it with a {{fact}} tag should be avoided unless you can demonstrate you have checked the source and found the claims are not present, in which case it's better to tag at {{failed verification}}, and even then only if you can back up and justify your tags. It's not really surprising your edits were reverted, as they don't seem to show any empathy for the subject matter. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333,

T/p(s) exist for a purpose and our policies explicitly ask users to not discuss stuff via edit-sums; I have indeed launched a specific section for my reverts, post the first revert by Giano. Where RexxS has responded and I will respond, soon.

I need not show any empathy for a long-deceased subject; nothing whatsoever. Also, this is a bit rich, coming after all that has happened with you. ∯WBG^converse 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've noticed on a couple user talks that I watch that you'll sometimes make a comment and then decided shortly after to self-revert - in looking at your edits to user talks I see 4 such examples in the last week. Because of the nature of talk page notifications I'm guessing that in most situations that the person is still seeing your edit. So rather than walking back comments you think better of - what I am sure is your intent - it now causes all the impact of the post without allowing the person it's directed at to have a chance to respond. I'd like to suggest that you think just a tad harder before publishing comments to user talks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurul_Alam_Chowdhury&diff=918265589&oldid=918255460 Just to let you know, I didn't mean to make this revert of your addition, not sure how it happened, mis click perhaps. Regards Govindaharihari (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari:-No qualms; it happens :-) ∯WBG^converse 08:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Rain, mostly.
Message added 09:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SerialNumber54129 09:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. ∯WBG^converse 08:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Seriously [4], [5]? I understand your concerns about self cite/walled garden issues. I also appreciate your efforts to weed them out. However, for this particular article, the deletion discussion did not come up with a consensus to remove the content. I have started a discussion at Talk:Inner Engineering: A Yogi's Guide to Joy regarding this.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This IP 157.43.235.10 is continuing your slow edit war. Please refrain if it is you. It is highly unlikely for a new user to dig up someone else's edit and type in those words. The IP is from where you live. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not me and you might be surprised to know that there's a feature that allows an user to restore an earlier article version.

FWIW, I am highly curious, as to how you know where I live most of the time. And about how you managed to geo-locate the IP with such extreme precision, amidst a highly contrarian data-set spanning over the breadth of a country, at a time when I was actually at United Kingdom.

The edit-summaries were not very mature either, FWIW and WP:SPI is that-way.∯WBG^converse 13:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you mention it yourself on your talk page when edit pops up. I am reverting you, please stop edit-war and respond on talk page. You have been engaging in slow edit war for ages. The IP did not 'revert' but edited! --Jaydayal (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://rasaneh.farhang.gov.ir/fa/newsagency/13355/%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%B5%D8%B5%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%AA%DA%A9%D9%86%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%AA

I will kindly ask you to WP:REFACTOR your edits about me at disgraced and [6] in light of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your EEML history and still, I was subtle enough to use disgraced, which FWIW is enough factual in light of your desysop + ban, for cause. If you deem that as a NPA, AN lies thatway. ∯WBG^converse 05:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing subtle about that, and I agree it was a blatant personal attack. WBG, I have known you for a while as a positive editor; please take a step back and consider laying off of other editors. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An ex-admin de-sysoped and temporally banned for running off-wiki collusion networks is textbook definition of disgraced (OED defines it as Having fallen from favour or a position of power or honour). And to me, someone (irrespective of whether he is an editor of our site or not) being intrinsically involved in trying to remove a piece critical of him, from being used a source over an article, is textbook violation of our COI policy. On some reflections, I have struck off my statement that he should have been shown the door aka banned long ago, which do remain my feelings but is fairly irrelevant. ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the remark that bothered me. That you think someone has disgraced themselves, that's one thing, but that other remark is quite another--it doesn't only mean a lack of good faith, but also suggests that somehow the community got it wrong the whole time. That's not impossible, but it's really hurtful. I am not all that aware of the EEML debacle, but I do believe that those involved paid the price, and that includes Piotrus--who, I understand, is now being smeared off-wiki by a banned editor. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can consider it as resolved:-) I do agree that shown the door was unnecessarily harsh.

FWIW, I am a bit bothered about the reasoning :- but also suggests that somehow the community got it wrong the whole time. That's not impossible, but it's really hurtful.. The community shall not be compelled or expected to engage in some sort of group-think-like-reverence towards any event that have happened in this project; dissent (irrespective of however misplaced they might seem to individual eyes) have a place. I have definitely read you stating over somewhere (circa 2012/13; some AN/ANI thread, probably) that you did not (personally) agree with certain old blocks of Eric and thought they were poor to the extent of not mattering any, for determining a future sanction. Do you see that there is a scope of asking the same question to you, in a slightly re-framed manner? FWIW, I do not seek to comment on the merit of Eric's past blocks, in any manner. An example for the sake of it and where I agreed with your assessment. ∯WBG^converse 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's less complicated than that, I think: if their past sins were so bad, they would have been punished more in that case that was so large in scope, but that's really as much as I want to say about it. I'm not saying that the community always gets it right, but I am saying that all this was a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please copy edit Cauvery calling? Previously, it was written in promotional way, I requested deletion and recreated from scratch? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I (normally) don't touch anything related to this god-man with a barge-pole or so; seem to have a network of spammers to filibuster and wear down others in a bid to maintain a promotional coverage. Still, will take a shot at it, within the next few days. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent edit on Romila Thapar. The discussion related to paragraph was already going on at Talk:Romila Thapar and we were about to reach on consensus while you removed whole content. Can you please reinstate content while discussion is going on ? You’re welcome to discuss your points there. Thanks for copy edit though. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, we're not the best of buddies, and I don't want any words to sound patronising. But I had to share this with you. I've followed the tone of your discussions with fellow editors in the past few weeks and I've noticed that you are being very supportive, helpful and are taking criticism with all good faith. Of course, even I have bad days like you, but just thought I'll drop in and tell you what I am perceiving. Thank you. Lourdes 12:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You removed 4 pictures from D. J. Sindh Government Science College on 12:59 pm, 25 November 2016, Friday (UTC +5). Those pictures are not watermarked and are available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. Link to the pictures are available on the bottom my talk page along with your notice. ZaeemAkhtr (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just sitting here (at a major equestrian event) with some extra time on my hands while waiting for the vet to finish checking my granddaughter’s horse (he came up lame) and read what you just added to your very interesting user page info. I must say, WBG, I am duly impressed - you are the first male I’ve known who has crystal balls, and I hope your account never goes rogue. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with Indian clothing customs. In the "Social disruption" section of Bengal famine of 1943 there is a photo that Fowler&fowler (who is on wikibreak, and I do not wish to disturb him) has labeled "Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943". Following this description, I made the alt text: "Alt text: Old photograph of a woman squatting and tiny, emaciated toddler standing on a sidewalk. The woman is shirtless but squatting to conceal her breasts. The toddler is wearing rags." But ... you know... those arms look kinda muscular, and so does the back.. the face is a bit unclear and a bit androgynous, so might be a young man, maybe late teens (?) .. do the bracelets definitely mark the wearer as female? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBG, I am sorry for interrupting. Lingzhi2, I believe this is a married woman. According to tradition, married Bengali women (at least those who are Hindus) wear a pair of white and red bangles known as "shakha pola". Perhaps the red ones are not visible. I am not aware of Bengali men wearing bangles. There is a video clip by BBC [7] of the 1943 famine, where you can notice other women wearing similar bangles. The clip has some disturbing images though.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLinker, you aren't interrupting at all. In fact, your answer is quite helpful. Thank you for taking the time to respond. Cheers! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit to Ramesh Nagaraj Rao. Please do not remove sourced content, particularly during a deletion debate. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:ROLLBACKUSE]Cease the abuse of rollback]] lest it be taken away. Please gain consensus of inclusion, over the t/p. ∯WBG^converse 12:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, being the nominator of the AFD, you are WP:INVOLVED to take any administrative actions at the AFD, the same applies to user:Serial Number 54129. Also your removal of the IP vote is against policy, whether you're involved or not. There's no rule that prevents IPs from voting. Please self-revert. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramesh_Nagaraj_Rao_(2nd_nomination). SD0001 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I noticed your recent deletion, with the note "How is this a RS?"

Well. . .

• The person quoted, Jesse Bering, is an Associate Professor at a mainstream university (https://www.otago.ac.nz/science-communication/staff/bering/index.html).

• Most of the deleted text consists of him quoting a respected mainstream scientist (https://news.virginia.edu/content/pioneering-professor-doris-kuhlmann-wilsdorf-dies-service-thursday).

• His article appeared on the website of Scientific American -- that is, the website of an ultra-respected scientific publication. From a search of the site, it seems that Bering has been writing a regular column there since at least 2011. That is to say, he's an invited contributor.

So: How is this not an RS?

I recognize that the views expressed are controversial (one might say "flaky"). But "The content is flaky, therefore the source is unreliable" would be circular logic.

So?

Cordially,

O Govinda (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog with no editorial control; a material scientist is not any expert in the relevant discipline. ∯WBG^converse 06:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WBG, since you have the book and seem to enjoy this stuff, you might try and improve Mirza Hassan Khan and Aslam Khan (Pakistani brigadier). If you have the energy, you might even write a whole article on the 1947 Gilgit Rebellion, which is dearly in need! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bilal 202.69.15.95 (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NPA, NOTHERE, or am I being too sensitive? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think generally? As per link should "Revocation" be changed to "Abrogation" in the page "Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir"? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about what a BJP mouthpiece say esp. about these subtle semantics. ∯WBG^converse 11:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol ok. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have created a category. I am in the process of expanding each of those book articles. In fact, there are half a dozen more such books that I am going to read and create book-pages. Thanks again. Scenecontra (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are actively editing the Wikipedia page now, I find calling Republic TV a 'mouthpiece' of the ruling government is equally wrong too. That too in the first paragraph. The exactly same issue was earlier discussed in the talk page. Many hold similar opinions on NDTV type media too.... But NDTV's page has nothing of the sort... It would be strictly wrong to refer to any news channel as a mouthpiece. Please remove that too. Content like this can find place in criticism section only. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HarshithaHappyGoLucky: -- I am engaging in a total overhaul; please wait. Leads do reflect the entirety of body incl. criticism (if any) and this will be no exception, either. ∯WBG^converse 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also please update the Audience share to the week 42 most recent figures.

The first line in criticism section looks more like a POV(*pushing of view). I'm sure the same information about the 'right wing bias' opinion of certain other sections of the medis could be written in an NPOV way.(*less aggressive way). This one's upto you. You may do it once you're done with the page overhaul.

Regards _/\_ :) HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher), HarshithaHappyGoLucky, If you are going to use acronyms here, then please familiarize yourself with them (and their meaning on Wiki) before using them. POV on wiki refers to the Point of View and not "pushing of view", you should use the full version if you intend to say pushing of view.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. :) I only meant the view was put in a rather aggressive way. Also thank you for the edits. HarshithaHappyGoLucky (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you removed material from an article with an edit summary describing it as fluff solely introduced for the sake of ref-spamming. I would strongly advise that you avoid directing language of this sort towards editors generally well-respected in the community for the quality of their work. In fact, I would generally advise that where sources which you find disagreeable are introduced to an article during the course of a deletion discussion, that you address the deficiencies of those sources in the deletion discussion rather than removing them from the article while the discussion is ongoing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted though I do believe that quality of edits shall be (mostly) evaluated on the basis of standalone merits. FWIW, I had already opened a t/p section with explicit analysis. ∯WBG^converse 07:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, when you open a deletion discussion on a subject, you are asking the community to express their opinion on whether sources exist which establish the notability of the subject. It is common for editors who wish to save the article to add sources—even poor sources—which the community can then evaluate. It is incongruous to ask the community to evaluate sources while at the same time unilaterally removing sources added to an article during the discussion. You might be concerned that the community will be fooled by the addition of what you consider to be "fluff" or "ref-spamming", but these concerns can be adequately addressed in the deletion discussion without further engaging in editing of the nominated article itself. bd2412 T 16:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to bother you, but this material Soon after the 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini established the death penalty for homosexuality. In February and March of 1979, there were 16 executions for crimes related to sexual violations. which was inserted during this edit is copied from this source.Saff V. (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, this Khomeini defined transsexuality as a disease that can be healed by means of an operation is copied from this source in this edits (1, 2).Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And close paraphrasing at this edit from this source.Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WBG. At this ANRFC listing you said you were working on a close for the RfC. Is that still the case? I almost waded in to close it myself but I don't want to do so if you've been working on it. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and closed the RfC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I missed the notification for this thread. I had forgot the issue, in entirety and have no qualms about your's closing it :-) ∯WBG^converse 04:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Woahhh Tentree 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking out the time to improve Republic TV. DBigXrayᗙ 10:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged, I have been recently been given access to EPW by Wikipedia library. How to have access of it? It is being shown that new issues will be sent in a week. Will I be able to access archives then? Also, I have too many reference books and access to library offside Wiki. Can you tell how it will help here in resource exchange? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my (current) knowledge, TWL has merely sent your request to EPW, days back. They have their own internal workflow, pending the completion of which, you will be directly contacted by them and provided with login credentials. Using that, over the site, will grant you full access to their archives till-date. FWIW, any university-library having humanities courses ought be enrolled over JSTOR and IIRC, JSTOR has EPW archives until 2014.

Keep an eye out for requests over WP:RX and if a book/dissertation is available in a library, (that you can access), help out folks at your pleasure. Basically, notify them that you can help out and they will drop you a wiki-mail feature, thus disclosing their email to you ; you can then attach the scanned copies (jpeg/pdf) of resources, in reply. Best, ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me create a list of books and library under my user space first. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Swaminarayan Sampraday and Morari Bapu to your watchlist. Several Hindutvavadis or their followers are removing sourced content from the article without proper logic. I think there’s some off-wiki connection here. I am thinking to take long break but just handle these zealots. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 18:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about our little "edit war" (if that's what is called an edit war) on the actual article. I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, just trying to do the right thing, and absolutely nothing else. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started editing after a few months. From the history on my talk pageIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC), I can see you are the same guy who was following me the last time? Is there some personal animosity? Why are you Wikipedia:Hounding me?IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The next block will be indef. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make this change? How is labeling someone as "discredited" following [[WP::NPOV]] or encyclopedic? Rabbabodrool (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI ... ∯WBG^converse 03:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed it to "Pseudo-scientific", which I think is a term more in keeping with Wikipedia's voice. BD2412 T 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a fairly good middle ground to take, but Rajaram is one of the extremely fringe characters of the Hindu Nationalism diaspora. Much of what he says is precise nonsense, garbed under mumbo-jumbo scholarship and critical reception is flatly negative. Will discuss at the t/p. ∯WBG^converse 03:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is heading towards a WP:SNOW keep, so I thought you might like the opportunity to withdraw the nomination. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You might have snow-kept, as well ') ∯WBG^converse 03:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better way to handle it all around. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment to clean this up, I'd greatly appreciate it; I'm stretched really thin at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On tomorrow's to-do list :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

another, if you've got the time...Vanamonde (Talk) 06:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know Devdutt personally; not the best person to edit that article .... ∯WBG^converse 11:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Yes, good call; the issues with it are more with language than with material, but even so, best not to meddle. I'll try to find the time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winged Blades of Godric,

Your script User:Winged Blades of Godric/EFFPTest.js is no longer functional because it attempts to get an editToken from mw.user.tokens. The script should instead get a csrfToken. editTokens were removed from mw.user.tokens on October 3, 2019 at Phabricator during this edit as they were redundant to csrfTokens.– BrandonXLF (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...then here is article MensXP.com related to one portal. I did cleanup and if you have some sources then add some content. Good Night!-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my domain of interest; hardly know anything about the website .... ∯WBG^converse 11:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sections Circuit analogs and Telegraphic codes for India —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatched emails. ∯WBG^converse 11:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the content you removed from this article, which you said you "will rewrite". Please see the article's edit history - the content has been controversial since it was added in June, but the current wording is the result of the collaboration of multiple editors. The content is well-sourced (indeed, it is the only sourced part of the article) but has been repeatedly removed by anonymous and newly registered editors as "incorrect", "unnecessary", "fake news", "wrong news to defame" etc. - to the point where the article has been protected twice to prevent that and at least one user (Ezio bhumihar) was blocked. As you can see, you are walking into a bit of a minefield! You are an experienced editor; I am not reverting your change because I oppose any change at all, but because any rewrite would clearly need discussion on the talk page first. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

∯WBG^converse

Hello:

Although I do accept occasional requests to copy edit articles from editors with whom I have had extensive dealings in the past, I prefer that GA copy edit requests such as yours be listed on the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests ). That way they are dealt with in order, in a timely manner.

That being said, I did run through the article as you requested and made what I think are appropriate changes.

The following paragraph has me completely baffled, however. This may be because of my lack of mathematical knowledge or because of the run-on sentences.

For example, multiple techniques in the book involve the use of high-precision decimal fractions. These were unknown during the Vedic times and were introduced in India only in the sixteenth century.[11] The works of numerous ancient mathematicians such as Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara were entirely based on fractions.[2] Some of the sutras even claimed to run parallel to the General Leibniz rule and Taylor's theorem (which, per Krishna Tirtha, were to be yet studied by the western world during the time of his writing) but did ultimately boil down to the sub-elementary performative operations of basic differentiation on polynomials notwithstanding the fact that historic India had no minimal knowledge about the conceptual notions of differentiation and integration.[2] Sutras have been further leveraged to claim that analytic geometry of conics occupied an important tier in Vedic mathematics and some others have been applied or asserted as being applicable to topics as diverse as statics and pneumatics to astronomy and financial domains.[2][11]

This sentence: "For example, multiple techniques in the book involve the use of high-precision decimal fractions. These were unknown during the Vedic times and were introduced in India only in the sixteenth century." Then there appears to be a contradiction with the sentence that follows: "The works of numerous ancient mathematicians such as Aryabhata, Brahmagupta and Bhaskara were entirely based on fractions."

I think that the rest of that paragraph needs to be rewritten in plain English so that it can be understood by the average reader.

The rest of the article is in good shape, I believe.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, a lot! Your point about rewriting the paragraph for average readers, is well taken. FWIW, decimal fractions refer to Decimal#Decimal_fractions but fractions refer to the typical a/b notation; need to clear that up. ∯WBG^converse 12:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Godric. I have made alot of drafts of actors and actresses. Can I show them to you. I am new and i am learning new stuff around. Thank you.

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 17:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is actually very old, but I'm guessing you never got it... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shurbanm (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC) could you please elaborate on why you reverted my additions to the Gradeshnitsa Tablets?[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the content of Thakur Anukulchandra page without any refeence. If you have any please post on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoanWalker (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you have been continuously doing at Anukulchandra Chakravarty, you may be blocked from editing. Stop threatening me on my user page to hide your systematic vandalism to delete Wikipedia:Reliable_sources contents like ISBN page references and stamps issued by your Government_of_India. My friend, you speak good English. So congratulations but first deal with your third world country issues and don't show me your talent on my talk page. If you are deleting content pt appropriate comments and delete. WikiLoneCrusader (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You (and your sock) has a message at the article t\p. ∯WBG^converse 08:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
Message added 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there are enough sources now to create an article for Newslaundry? It was creation protected indefinitely on 13 January 2016 by an admin. It's been quite sometime since then and articles from it have also been used as sources a couple of times. DTM (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. Hardly any source, that devotes significant coverage to NL. ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..... maybe a few months/years/decades later. I guess this one then, Sundas Malik and Anjali Chakra, seems even less likely to pass a draft review... DTM (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realize, that the latter was a draft of your creation. But, that's a textbook NOTNEWS failure. ∯WBG^converse 14:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from ThePrint, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I dropped you a talkback about this a few days ago, but I'm not sure you got it. SpinningSpark received the requested article about Indian telegraphic codes, but there was some kind of error with the circuit analogs one. Could you try sending it again? Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[8] – Levivich 04:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Don't worry, you're not in trouble, it simply regards Kumar Swami and some longstanding issues around it. Seeing as you were previously involved, and I mentioned you in the AN, this is out of courtesy and a broad interpretation of the AN notice policy :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I returned, I want to have a more amicable experience this round, and the way I responded to your message does not exactly confer that message properly, nor does it help me attain that goal (it was a defensive gesture because as you obviously know, we do not have the best relationship). So, even though we might disagree strongly, I will ask you directly what relists you were precisely referring to. I have looked them over myself to see if I missed something, and asked fellow admins to as well. As of yet, no one seems to think much of them other than one could have potentially faced a no consensus close (yet the relist was still was within reasonable discretion). So please, at least let me know where you stand properly, so I can take it into account for reflection if nothing else. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[I appreciate this post and will reply, in a while]. ∯WBG^converse 11:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks!--Saff V. (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which sources you are flagging as unreliable? Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, please stop by your review here the next time you edit to indicate whether you will be returning to the review, and if so, how soon you plan on finishing it. The review will be nine months old on December 23. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On it. ∯WBG^converse 11:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... is the face of Modi 2. Who is going to work on his page? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I nominate User:Vanamonde93. (FWIW, our article on Narendra Modi has not been updated since quite a span of time and we need to do that as well ....) ∯WBG^converse 16:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some good news. Looks like Amit Shah has been told to lie low for a while. Jaishankar will have a lot of damage control to do in the meanwhile and we are likely to have a peaceful Christmas and New Year. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This placard appears to be a more apt slogan for this season. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modi's page does indeed need to be updated, and Shah's article needs to be rewritten (it seems to have gotten off my watchlist somehow; how on earth did the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case get removed from the lead? it was the primary reason for his notability until 2014...) Vanamonde (Talk) 19:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBG: When I read your comment here, I was baffled and repelled by it's aggressive and threatening tone. That the edit in question was ill-considered I will grant. I had spent considerable time on producing a concise, focused, well-written lead for that article - only to find dumped into it a mass of ungrammatical and repetitive material that, in any case, I thought belonged elsewhere in the article. This last point was based on the misconception expressed in the comment here and acknowledged as incorrect here.

But please do not be distracted by the fact that I was mistaken in that respect. The more important fact is that my efforts were directed toward improving the writing and the structure of the article and in no way warranted your aggressive and insulting lack of good faith. Please in future do not address me (or hopefully any other editor) in such manner, do not make unfounded accusations, and do not impugn my motives in editing Wikipedia.

Thank you for your attention. Dayirmiter (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your motivations don't matter; the end-results do.

The extent of AGF is quite low in a domain under the AC/DS regime (as you have been since alerted to) courtesy the constant barrage of POV pushing, that we are near-incessantly used to. Controversial topics are NOT your sandbox to mess about and then, learn our rules; please choose some low-scale article where things are more peaceful.

Happy Holidays, ∯WBG^converse 16:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just a friendly reminder that WP:AGF "is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia", and if anything AC-DS articles need more of AGF and not less of it. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and for your holiday greeting, which I heartily reciprocate. May all be well with you and yours in the coming year.

Dayirmiter (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I came to give a reminder of AGF as well, for another incident in December. Telling other editors "Are you really this stupid or are you paid" isn't the tone you ought to be taking. Bri.public (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't really want me measuring your AGF as to your editorial activities in the domain of suspected UPE, do you? That article (and related stuff) has been subject to continual whitewashing by sockpuppet rings and a stonewalling SPA need not be dealt with much courtesy. ∯WBG^converse 19:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Keep Shaj Mohan, Divya Dwivedi and their book in watchlist. Their original creators were confirmed socks, added much details about their works in multiple pages and there’s continuous disruption from france and kerala where divya and shaj belongs respectively. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WWorringer lists all socks. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ∯WBG^converse 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Did you check the source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply, morrow. ∯WBG^converse 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Winged Blades of Godric, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, And thanks for just your general contributions - I see you all over the place so couldn't point out just one! What's the Winter temperature like over in Kolkata? Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはWinged Blades of Godricたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Thank you for the Christmas cheer! I was surprised to see your username on my talk page, but I am very glad we can start a new path forward. Sorry for how things went before. You needed to give me some tough words before I left, but after a long deliberate absence I at least found how to fully see where I had been over interpreting too many things and how I overstepped in my dealings with you (if only I could walk back in time to correct my former self). At any rate, I hope we can find new beginnings and new friendship in the New Year, and I truly hope you and your family have a wondeful season and beyond! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Hi. You've made repeated edits to the page Savarna (gotra) where many points were well-referenced, indulging in edit warring. Please create a talk page for the article and have a discussion regarding this. It is ideal to resolve disagreements through discussions and not edits. Thanks! TheodoreIndiana (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Adding this , just to let you know that I have mentioned you in my response. regards.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DBigXray --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is over. You missed it --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, as it may sound, someone tried to WP:NOTHERE me today.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had my editorial differences with Ms. Welch but still, strange to see her mentioning of a longstanding editor as NOTHERE; weird ..... On a lighter note, see this. ∯WBG^converse 09:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stribodh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Stribodh, first published in 1857, was one of the earliest magazines in India to be aimed at a female audience? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stribodh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Stribodh), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asian News International, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted video proofs why deleted? That section it's wrong !! Protest happened it cant be denied .We can add that Bkr3da (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well documented video & news proofs are available student protest against her !!! Why you are removing that?? Boneyjv (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the biographies of living persons policy. Wikipedia articles are not to be used as a means of shaming or attacking people, or for activism. If you can provide multiple reliable sources from major publications, it can be discussed at the article's talkpage for possible inclusion, but simply linking to Twitter or YouTube isn't sufficient. ∯WBG^converse 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character assassination is not allowed within any pages of well-published authors and academic. You can easily discuss different point of views as long as it ties in with the overall biography. The page of Nitasha Kaul has been subject to repeat vandalism and a good decision has been taken by the Wiki team to protect the page. And we will protect it even in future. Wikipedia editors are impartial and we don't entertain unnecessary disturbances. I must add that I have already seen this user called "Boneyjv" on the Twitter profile of this author. He has been trying to purposely vandalize this author's page out of sheer malice, and to push a certain political agenda, just because she has been a fierce opponent of India's present government. It is very disturbing to have anyone push a political agenda using YouTube, Twitter, and other non-credible sources. --Tech editor007 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many of you are editing behind this account? ∯WBG^converse 08:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who this question is directed to? But my personal 10-year old account has nothing to do with users including "Boneyjv", "Bkr3da", and anyone else. I am trying to fix this article's mistake, the other unconfirmed users are here to troll mostly.--Tech editor007 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) In other news, 10-year-old account makes one edit every two weeks. Hey Ho :) ——SN54129 10:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that you have to edit articles daily, weekly or whatever schedule feels "adequate" to you? We're all volunteers who get to decide the amount of time we can individually allocate to Wikipedia. I may be lazy and not very frequent in my contributions though which I agree should be improved. I only wanted to highlight the frequent vandalism in one of the recent articles which I edited. Let's not change the focus. --Tech editor007 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And we will protect it even in future. At any case, what do you intend to do with this draft? ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's discuss it in the relevant page. I had forgotten all about that one. It's a very old article for sure - 2010. But if it's in my user page, I don't care about it presently otherwise I'd have watched it surely. --Tech editor007 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]