Jump to content

User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 4

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


Signature

[edit]

Sorry, but I'm trying to understand your signature--this is very confusing. The name in the signature is "Light Saber"? The colors make it difficult for me to read, and there's typography in between. But your account name is something completely different, and in your signature there is a link to User talk:ARUNEEK, which redirects here, so I assume the account has been renamed. That's three names in all--please make it easy on other editors... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:-Regrets for the problem.Actually my account name is just too long to be accommodated in the 255 bit-signature.Thus I utilised the name of my prev. account (prior to rename) in the link for the user.Any ideas will be welcome.Thanks!Light❯❯❯ Saber 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, well... What I could say is really boring: User:Winged Blades of Godric (talk) or something like that. Is that too long? I just don't rightly get, but I'm old, why you'd be on your third name already, or why you are called by Winged Blades and Light Saber... And this is confusing esp. with notifications and histories--I saw one name in the notifications, and then another on the page, and then the third when I hovered because I was confused. But maybe I'm the only one. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been wondering, too. Blades, I've seen you posting at noticeboards; when you do that, you up the chance that someone will want to ping you back, or query you here, and it is confusing. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir:, @Drmies:, I guess the user had two signatures as well, cannot remember, but it was something Arubaska Vanguard! with similar colours and style as used now in signature, it is very confusing when comparing old discussions. Junosoon (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Junosoon: Yes, it was Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard

I see the similarity. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 08:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC) @Junosoon:--No doubt, it will really be very confusing to you!Light❯❯❯ Saber 17:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC) @Drmies:,@Yngvadottir:---To hell with all the stylish signatures.I will be definitely looking into the issue and sending out once I am on a PC.Light❯❯❯ Saber 17:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Light❯❯❯ Saber 17:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK: Please link at least part of your current username in your current signature (whatever that is at the moment). Intentionally doing something which others may find confusing could be deemed disruptive, to a greater or lesser degree: A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page. This is not currently the case. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 08:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:Yeah, but actually to change the signature,I need to get on a PC and it will be some more days before I have access to one.So regrets for the delay. Anyway, you also had some other signature than your username.Did you change it due to some problems similar to the one caused by mine.I vaguely remember a discussion on Iridiscent's talk page concerned with this issue.Light❯❯❯ Saber 14:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to ping @Iridescent: about your signature, there? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure about the venue of discussion but anyway probably he will be able to clarify.Light❯❯❯ Saber 14:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thread is here, and my exact wording was having a signature which doesn't include your username (or at least the first part of it) was a mildly disruptive thing to do, as it makes it impossible for anyone not in on the code to ctrl-f search for your contributions on a given talkpage and doesn't actually bring any benefits to justify the mild disruption, which I stand by entirely. Causing disruption when it's necessary for a purpose which outweighs the disruption, is perfectly acceptable; causing disruption just for the sake of being obnoxious, which is what you're doing here, is certainly not, especially when it results in a garish and intrusive signature like this. (If you head on over to somewhere like WP:FAC or WP:ARB, I trust you'll notice that none of the participants have signatures that look they've been cut-and-pasted from a takeout menu.)
What your signature looks like to those who don't have the necessary special characters installed
I also agree with Redrose down below that the use of special characters should be avoided where unnecessary as they rely on other users having the same setup as you—see right for what your signature looks like to me. (Firefox on OSX). ‑ Iridescent 00:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right; I guess the assumption would be that if you saw that conversation on their Talkpage, then that means you were already aware of the issue? Cheers! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:---Ha!Ha!I only read through the start of the discussion (but certainly enough to get a whiff of the theme) but amusingly failed to apply it in my own case.And it got compounded with the limitations of the 255 bit limit of the signature(If I want to put the name of my account twice in my signature, much of the style has to be abolished.)Should have spent more thoughts on the occasion!Anyway, why you all of a sudden changed your signature?Light❯❯❯ Saber 14:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably have to do it your way.Half of the username links to the account and the test to the talk Page. That's a damn good idea..Light❯❯❯ Saber 14:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
H'mmm think it was discussed signatures with Redrose64, although regarding another editor. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the fact that the name "Winged Blades of Godric" - or even part of it - does not appear in either the link or the visible text.
There are also problems with the three "❯" characters, each of which shows as a little box containing tiny figures. If I zoom in about six steps, I can see that these are "276F", so it means that the Unicode character U+276F is not displayable on my system. I realise that my own sig contains a character which some might not see as it is intended - this is the "🌹" character; but I have carefully included it so that when in edit mode it is in a human-readable form, viz. 🌹
Turning now to contrast, we have three colour pairs to test. color:green on background:#fff0cc has a contrast ratio of 4.55 which is WCAG AA compliant, but not WCAG AAA compliant. It's permissible, but not as good as we would hope for. However, color:#FC0 on background:#fff0cc has a contrast ratio of 1.34 which is not WCAG compliant at all. The word "Saber" is in the default link colour, which will vary dependent upon skin, and also whether the link has been visited or not; but assuming an unvisited link and Vector skin, we have color:#0645ad on background:#fff0cc - this has a contrast ratio of 7.55 which is not only WCAG AA compliant, it's WCAG AAA compliant too, so is absolutely fine.
Let's now consider the validity of the markup. The HTML is correctly-balanced, although there are some superfluous spaces. It is mostly valid, but the first <span> tag contains the invalid attribute font-family:= "Monotype". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:---I have amended the signature to include the name of my user account but had not yet resolved the contrast issue. A lot of thanks for the detailed analysis.Winged Blades Godric 14:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @Iridescent: - - - Thanks for participating in the discussion. But obnoxious was a really strong word. Winged Blades Godric 14:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who pinged me to this discussion, not the other way round; if you don't like your signature being described as "obnoxious", don't have a signature that can be described as obnoxious and quit goofing around trying to see how close you can push the 255-character envelope. I'll point out that only one person in this thread is currently on a final warning for disruptive editing, and it isn't myself, Redrose or FIM. ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Apologies, but actually it was me that pinged you, after Aruneek/ WBoG mentioned a discussion on your TP. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:---Only one persion is currently on a final warning)---Am I on a final warning?(It is not Drmies or Yngvadottir at any cost.)Also, does my present signature partially address the issues? Winged Blades Godric 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NAC

[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you performed an NAC of the AFD for Saudi Arabian snowstorm 2016 recently. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to give you two pieces of advice. First, please be very careful with AfD closures. They are frequently contentious when administrators make them: when non-admins do so, it can get even worse. This discussion closure was fine, but in general, think about what you are doing a lot more than you would otherwise: and I say this as somebody who messed up my own first NAC. Second, when you do perform a closure, please follow all the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Carrying_out_the_AfD_close: it isn't enough to close the discussion page. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:---Thanks for your warm comments.I closed the RFC because I felt there was a strong consensus to keep under the purview of rare weather events(Snowfall is way too uncommon in Saudi Arabia and the 1st comment provided plenty of WP:RS to vouch for the nobility of the event.)Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closure was a tad early for a NAC Closure but anyway it is hard to believe anybody would oppose the keep.And then, there is always the review.Inspire of this I should have been more careful.Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfelt thanks for removing the AFD template from the article.I previously too closed 2 or 3 deletion debates but forgot to remove the template due to lack.(I prob. did not read the instructions properly).Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and as you have said I will be extremely careful in closing further deletion discussions, particularly so early.Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright: we all have a learning curve to climb. I somehow missed the fact that the AfD was closed early. That you should absolutely not do. Even admins don't close discussions early, unless the result is a speedy keep or delete. Please read WP:NAC and WP:NACD a few times before making any more closures. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please explain how a 3 day old AFD fits into NAC, specifically the Appropriate closures section. - GB fan 11:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the close. It does not fall into any of the items in WP:NAC. - GB fan 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: How do you feel This discussion closure was fine,?, and you go ahead with cleaning up [1] and [2] acknowledging that the closure was appropriate,I somehow missed the fact that the AfD was closed early,Suprisingly you missed noting the date when keeping the result, with 10 January 2017 date mentioned there and [3] yourself!.

It is not only about the days a discussion is run, it is about also having consideration, that some other editor might be interested in discussions and was not able to participate due to closure, is it not!.Junosoon (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said already, it was not exactly "fine" because I missed the fact that it had been closed early: but it was close enough to a snow keep that I didn't bother reverting. That's all. Vanamonde (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not citing WP:SNOW was a definite error on my part. And closing the discussion so early was probably un-warranted. But, even then it would be surprising if after the full listing of the debate the result comes out contrary to my closure. Thanks to everyone(esp. Vanamonde93 and Yngvadottir and GB fan) for raising the issues with my closure.

@Junosoon: - - - I don't like or have a keen inclination for indulging in tedious WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and I would propose we avoid each other's talk pages for the time being. Light❯❯❯ Saber 08:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 19:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:09:23, 17 January 2017 review of submission by Abic1991

[edit]


The notability section requires that the team compete in either UCI 1, 2 or 3 events. This team competes in UCI 2 events, as required (including National Championships, Oceania Championships, NZ Cycle Classic (UCI 2.2) and the UCI Oceania Series). It is my understanding that this satisfies that element of notability. Secondly, I have added more sources, both from major international cycling publications (cyclingtips.com, cyclingnews.com, etc) and major news outlets (eg. Sydney Morning Herald and international websites such as stuff.com). It is my understanding that these can be considered both reliable and independent in accordance with Wiki policies. It also appears to me that this satisfies the 'Golden Rule'.

As I glanced through the draft, I saw a reference attributed to a Google search, one related to some advertorial site, one under the purview of WP:CIRCULAR. Also, it would be helpful if you could add a few more sources about the team described in non-cycling publications or sources.I would be taking a look at the notability concern later. Also, please go through the reply by SwisterTwister since you have posted there too. Winged Blades Godric 08:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in the results section that a member of the team had finished sixth, seventh etc. is trivial in my opinion. Also the results of those competitions should be enlisted which has sufficidnt stature or notabilith in the cyclinv wofld. A trim-up of the section will look good. Winged Blades Godric 08:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as you will see most of the sources uses in the draft are used to cite the results of the team in various events or the team composition. Winged Blades Godric 08:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OUTCOMES as AfD closing rationale

[edit]

Hi, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroaebe River as "keep'. Per WP:MAPOUTCOMES." WBoG, MAPOUTCOMES isn't policy, it's not even a guideline, it barely rises to the level of essay. Per that very page:

Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice.

tl;dr: OUTCOMES is barely worthy of substantiating a !vote, and the fact that you used this as a closing rationale - it completely boggles the mind. We're barely into April and I see I'm not even the first this month to question your NAC closures at AfD. Maybe slow down and really read some of the pages you're citing? Antepenultimate (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:38:47, 18 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Elephunk Ears

[edit]


My article keeps getting rejected because the sources are not reliable. I am using a source which was used by an article that was accepted. How do I know what a reliable source is?Elephunk Ears (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elephunk Ears (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your case reliable sources would mean reputed books on US Military history, other fact-based accounts of that time, any news published in a reputable newspaper covering the squadron, their exploits etc.Further you need to use inline citation i.e. specify the source for a particular paragraph or a sentence at the end of the sentence or paragraph rather give a bunch of source's name at the end.Please go through the WP:RS policy for a comprehensive coverage.Winged Blades Godric 05:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's interesting. I've been looking at this current article which shows some footnoting but only one reference, which is a website that I also use as a reference. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2078th_Air_Weather_Reconnaissance_Squadron#cite_ref-2078AWRS_1-0 So in what way are my sources unreliable? I have a book published by the United States Air Force on the history of the Air Weather Service, a book from a 7 volume set on the Army Air Forces in World War II published by the University of Chicago Press, and a website that has already been accepted as a source by Wikipedia. I can understand if the criticism was that what I wrote was unsupported by the sources, but I'm skeptical that the editors who responded to my application, yourself included, had taken the time to read through the sources to draw that conclusion. Also, you are wrong that I just kept submitting the draft without trying to address its deficiencies. Please look at my editing history before making that criticism. Elephunk Ears (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:09, 20 January 2017 review of submission by Asya Kush

[edit]


Hello, thank you for reviewing my submission. Following on that I would like to ask you two questions, if possible. On the references and notability side - did it matter for you that references cited were in Turkish and not in English and that is why you could not follow? Second of all, I would be very grateful if you could say how to improve the manner of writing. I was actually trying to follow the accepted in such short bio articles format. But would be very happy to make all the necessary editorials. Thank you very much for you reply in advance.

Yeah, the references being in Turkish(or for that matter in any lang. other than English) is a definite dis-advantage to any article creator using the same.Even, if I assume that the references establish notability, there are many other problems too! First of all, the draft contains WP:EXTLINK in the body which is not allowed.Further, sentences like -Born in .... are more resume-like and should instead be written as - He was born in.....(Applicable to most sentences of the draft.).Also sentences like---he is currently developing good academic.... , he teaches classical...for 18 years all suits to the writing of a resume. Anyway, I will be shortly pruning/revising the draft (just some general toning...). Winged Blades Godric 09:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, going by the looks of the Turkish websites,I suspect them to be something like blogs etc.Also that an artist is listed in Metallica archive do not confer notability upon the musician. Winged Blades Godric 09:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:15, 1 February 2017 review of submission by 60.52.20.209

[edit]



Before making further changes to the draft, I would be grateful if you could provide us with guidance on references are not considered reliable please. We have attempted to be very careful in regard to all references and links.

Thank you

Genderaquafish

--Genderaquafish (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)== 00:06:29, 2 February 2017 review of submission by Genderaquafish ==[reply]


Going to resubmit my article for Prime Ministers, have a few questions

[edit]

Hi Godrik, First, thank you so much for taking the time to review our draft page! I am hoping to get the errors on the draft page for our Prime Ministers page corrected, re-submitted, and approved in the next 24 hours. I was hoping that my having creating an updated English language version of the existing approved Spanish language wiki page would be sufficient, but apparently it is not. Hoping for specific instructions of issues i can correct that will make this page pass review, as i must admit, "does not fulfill criteria for notability" sounds a bit vague to me. Please excuse me, i am new to Wikipedia article submissions, and to be honest I find reading through a 5-paragraph document on Notability Criterion to be less than clear. Thank you for the helpful specific constructive criticism to remove the section on External Links, I am happy to comply.

I have listed the various national awards, chart placements, and online articles by the Prime Ministers, they have been asked to appear at many prominent national and international music festivals, i do not understand how their notability is still in question. Can you please show me an other international band wiki page that is a good example of a fulfilling the criterion of notability, so that I can see the types of references I am missing?

Thanks for your help, Ben GROOVEGURUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by GROOVEGURUS (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Winged Blades of Godric

Thank you for your review of the draft Wikipedia page M.C. Nandeesha. I would like to request a re-review, after I have addressed your concerns and made the necessary changes. Your guidance would be very useful in helping us make the revisions. Specifically, would you be able to provide more specific information on the following, with respect to the draft:

"Please improve the submission's referencing..., so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Would you give me an example in the draft of where you consider the referencing is not adequate (and why), and also an example of where you think additional or different referencing would improve the article? I will then work to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements.

Thank you!

cheers

Genderaquafish

Reviewed cum replied in the draft.Will be posting a more detailed reply soon.Winged Blades Godric 16:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:55:51, 4 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Poojnm1985

[edit]



Poojnm1985 (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Poojnm1985:--In general secondary schools are notable provided they exist but in the complete absence of non-trivial discussion of the subject in external sources, I would prefer a heavily trimmed up version.Please remove the Founder and Director sections and instead just put the names in an infobox.Also sentences like --It has now over 1000 happy children enrolled-- is considered weasel in nature and epithets like happy cannot be used in Wikipedia's voice and that also in the lead.Further, the last section-Our Student Council is also unnecessary.Lastly, lines like with the aim is to address the overall development of your child is typical attempts at promotion and remove all such instances of promotion from the draft.Winged Blades Godric 04:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Article of Faia Younan

[edit]

Hi Dear,

Thank you for reviewing my Draft article about Faia Younan.

My Draft was declined because of an already existing article about Faia Younan. The article was submitted before the other article was created, unfortunately, it wasn't reviewed fast enough.

Nevertheless, my draft have previously been rejected for multiple reasons such as: - Lack of references - citations - and used materials from the official website.

I corrected my article to meet all the requirements, which the current Faia Younan article lack (I'm not sure why mine got rejected while his didn't). Anyway, I am trying to correct some of the information in that article, based on reliable sources, and adding the references, however, the creator keeps reverting my changes. someone should resolve this.

Thank you

TestCandidate 14:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestCandidate (talk • contribs)

@TestCandidate:--While,I understand the pangs of seeing so many days of hard work coming to a null, I would like that you assume WP:AGF at علاء directly creating the article in mainspace and instead contribute constructively in editing at Faia Younan.But please do not tendentiously edit war to include your version of the article and instead approach each other for consensus in talk-page discussions.As to the draft, it is best to leave it as it is.Winged Blades Godric 15:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you for your reply. I'll act as per your advice and talk to علاء.

Akiko Naka Wiki Page

[edit]

Hi thanks for your review of the page I have posted. Have made some edits to the citations. Please advise me on any specific issue you might have found on the submission. I understand that you are concerned with regard to 'notability'. My references cited are all renowned news sites- Bloomberg/ Channel News Asia etc. Do you have any suggestion on how I can resolve this 'notability' issue? Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walnutheart (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will be replying tomorrow.Winged Blades Godric 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Walnutheart:--Concerns like Bloomberg, TechAsia etc. cover CEO-s of thousands of startups.Whilst they lend to notability, I would prefer to see more reliable sources in the article used as sourches to vouch for her notability.Err....sorry for the late reply.Winged Blades Godric 05:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Doleac opinion

[edit]

Hello, you just reviewed my article on Doleac. I, in no way, dispute your findings on notability or begrudge your decision. As you can see from my writing style I take wikipedia editing very seriously. I am more interested on your opinion on NPOV of the article. Was I able to sufficiently excise my POV and distance my self from the subject in light of my COI. Kindly, — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janweh64:---As regards to NPOV and COI issues, I don't have any problem w.r.t to the tone of the article.But, as I said the problem was that the references in the draft did not prove/ lend any substantial notability to the subject.Winged Blades Godric 09:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:17, 6 February 2017 review of submission by Janweh64

[edit]

I have added 23 new citations almost doubling the number of sources. References of particular note are: The Los Angeles Times, Signature Magazine, and Dime Magazine which discuss Doleac in length. Also of note are cites 25 a thru e and 46 a thru h which are critics reviews from news organizations like SF Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, The Village Voice, two from Los Angeles Times, Starburst Magazine, and Film Journal International. I should point out I have a COI declared in the articles talk page, my user page, and discussed with User:Winged Blades of Godric on his talk page. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Hi, can I just get a quick: "I will get to it." I have tried pinging you before. I know we can all get busy sometimes.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Janweh64:-- Sorry, I can't make up my mind on your submission and I will leave it to the discretion of any other reviewer.Winged Blades Godric 05:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:00:33, 6 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Upstate Elite

[edit]


Hello, I wanted to reach out regarding the information I attempted to add to the Bill Gray's Regional Iceplex.  All the information I have added to the page (minus the horrendous job I did siting) are accurate as well as relevant.  I am not only a member of the Regional Iceplex, I am also a participant in the Iceplex Adult Hockey League.  Please let me know what I can do to improve the information I attempted to provide.  I look forward to your constructive criticism!


Upstate Elite (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Upstate Elite:--Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia.I declined your AFC because it was not supported by WP: reliable sources and failed to prove it's WP: NOTABILITY criterion.Whilst it may be true that the information added by you are relevant and correct, we rely on reliable sources to buckle the claims.And further, we depend on significant non-trivial discussions in independent reliable sources for putting forward the encyclopaedic notability of the subject.Winged Blades Godric 05:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:37, 7 February 2017 review of submission by Genderaquafish

[edit]



Dear Winged Blades of Godric

Thank you for your quick response to the re-submitted draft on M.C. Nandeesha. You do not provide any additional guidance on why you consider the notability criteria and referencing criteria are not satisfied in this case. I would like to make the following points, based on the Wikipedia notability criteria, and then request your feedback on where the draft is still deficient.

Notability criteria for people - with my responses: Any biography "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." - M.C. Nandeesha (MCN) has received several awards of the standing of other persons with Wikipedia pages, most especially the Cambodian Sahameitrei Knight Award given by Hun Sen, the Fellows Award by the World Aquaculture Society, and the Gold Award by the Asian Fisheries Society.

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." - MCN made not one but several widely recognized contributions of enduring historical record. The field of aquaculture development is not one that attracts historians due to its relatively recent growth in importance. However, the equivalent of historically verified references come from the "In Memorium" testimonials from some of the giants of aquaculture, both on the World Aquaculture Society website and the Genderaquafish website of the Asian Fisheries Society. His contributions were to (1) boost the aquaculture production of species of carp (fish) that are significant at a global level, (2) increase the number of poor people, including women, in aquaculture production, and (3) educate new aquaculture experts and create professional societies to strengthen the overall capacity of experts in the sector. - These contributions are recognized by the citation rates of his key papers, the respect given by his peers in their on-the-record statements when he died, and that international bodies such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, etc used his expertise and his research products/results in their work at a global level.

• The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. - MCN does not have this.

Academics..... •Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.- MCN spent most of his career as an academic and as a technical expert carrying out work that was published and presented widely, leaving a strong track of his achievements. Many of his published works were subject to peer review as references. The awards he received from heads of government in Cambodia and his seniors and peers in his profession are further proof that his ideas were very highly regarded. - In aquaculture, few deceased experts have received such high accolades and so many of them from such senior people. These accolades are mentioned in the Wikipedia draft.

I would appreciate your help please.

Genderaquafish--Genderaquafish (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Genderaquafish:Well, I have my reservations on accepting epithets and praises showered in obituaries as an indicator of one's academic prowess or brilliance in field. And as I have said publishing several research papers (which serve as most of the references) do not confer automatic notability.(I will be taking a look at the citation rates soon!).As to your last point, if that's the case, we are undone.Winged Blades Godric 05:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:24, 7 February 2017 review of submission by Genderaquafish

[edit]



Regarding aquaculture, Wikipedia is not strong in covering the field from almost any angle - no doubt we could speculate on push and pull factors on this, but it certainly makes it difficult to try to get an article accepted. As examples of the thin coverage: - India does not have its own page on aquaculture, despite being the world's 2nd largest aquaculture producer (if aquatic plants are not included, 3rd largest if plants are included -ref: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf); - none of the professional societies have their own pages; - the information on species and farming systems is poor almost universally; and - I can't find a suitable model profile of a "notable" aquaculture expert.

On the last point, I searched Wikipedia for references to one of the most notable global aquaculture experts ever. The only use of his name on Wikipedia was on a page about a tree, on which he is referenced as a co-author of an aquaculture reference. The seeds of the tree can be made into a cake that is sometimes used to fertilise fish ponds.

Since becoming familiar with the rather slim coverage of aquaculture on Wikipedia (and fish and fisheries more generally), I suggest that now is a very good time for Wikipedia to put its toe into the water and include much more on notable aquaculture topics, themes, people and organisations. Aquaculture is the fastest growing food producing sector on the planet and Wikipedia should enhance its role as a source of reliable information on it.

--Genderaquafish (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:12, 7 February 2017 review of submission by BartJong

[edit]


I am not requiring a re-review at this moment.

I have two questions, however:

1) What are reliable sources, if not peer-reviewed scientific papers? 2) Yesterday I found a message from Wikipedia in my email box with the subject "The page ‪Draft:Bracmat (programming language)‬ has been reviewed." I did not understand why I should get that email, because I had not submitted the article. Following the "view" link in the email I saw there was a new notice, again saying "The page ‪Draft:Bracmat (programming language)‬ has been reviewed." There was no more text than that short message, but to the left of the message I saw an icon depicting a text and a tick mark on top of it, which I interpreted as telling me that the article had been found acceptable. Then I decided to submit the article. Now the article is declined. My question is: why does Wikipedia send me a mail that seems to tell me that the article is OK?

I am of course unhappy about the box at the top of the draft article telling that the article has been declined. If I had not received the email from Wikipedia telling me that the article had been reviewed, I would not yet have submitted the article. Now I am brought in a situation that depicts me as a person that takes reliability lightly.

What do you propose me to do now?

I do not see a "Save page" button below, so now I am going to press the "Save changes" button below instead. I hope the message is not lost.

With kind regards Bart Jongejan


@BartJong:--I assume you are the developer of the programming language.Whilst it may be painful to see one's own programming lang. not main-spaced, please don't get disheartened.We need a significant discussion of the programming language and other allied aspects in secondary sources which shall not be so uncommon if the language is certainly notable.Please use those as references instead of depending only on research papers.Also, it would be helpful if you take a glance through WP:COI and accordingly disclose your conflicts(if any.)
As to your 2nd query, ask the question at WP:HELPDESK instead.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:26, 7 February 2017 review of submission by Ntrikha

[edit]


Hi I have added a reference from the book of Ganda Singh along with the main reference of research book of Sh Khushwant Singh, Are two books sufficient to say that the sources are reliable and the topic is well covered? Martyrdom of Baba Deep singh has been covered in Wiki article related to the person, however, there is no ceoverage of the actual battle where Baba received martyrdom and why is it important. This battle also changed the course of growth of Afghans in India. This battle (Gohalwar and Hoshiarpur) was initial victory of Sikhs against Afghans. It happened much before the King Ranjit Singh could establish his Sikh empire, and lies in the intervening period between death of last Sikh guru and First Sikh empire. Though I am trying to find some reliable book sources for the same, I just wished to enquire if two sources are sufficient?

Request on 11:54:16, 7 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Joanna.najdek

[edit]


Hello Winged Blades of Godric. To begin with, I would like to thank you for the time you spent on reading my article and giving me a review. I would appreciate it if you could tell me what can I do to improve my article once again. Before I submitted my article for the second time I had been assisted by one of the Wikipedia's Editor on chat. I changed everything according to this Editor's advice. Would you be so kind and tell me what you do not like about my article? How can I correct it? I would be most obliged if you could help me please. I feel a bit lost now. Looking forward to hearing from you.  Best regards, Joanna.


Joanna.najdek (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joanna.najdek:-By flowery attempts at promotion I mean language like thanks to the power of, According to techtudo.com - top brasilian online tech-magazine spread through the length of the article in Wikipedia's voice.Also most of the reviews mentioned in the awards and reviews sections seems to be not reliable enough.(Barring two/three of the references most are simple software repositories/unreliable blogs etc.)And please don't reference-bomb the article.Sourcing system requirements of the software to 4 websites/sources is pretty over-the-top.Also, the excessive details of the functionality section could easily be done away with--all specifications of the software need not be mentioned in an encyclopaedic entry.Under the purview of reliable sources I mean PC World, PC Central etc. type of websites.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 13:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

[edit]
Hello Winged Blades of Godric,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 830 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list

Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list [ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=763782465 this list]. -->

Ajay DAta

[edit]

Please help me correct this content on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Ajay_Data. I think there are lots of third party references added and notable. What more is required please guide me and tell me specifically, so I can do the needful. Taruntaunk1970 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into the Draft again, I have tried to do major edit as recommended in wiki policies.. Requesting to pl remove the Delete warning.. and help me to edit appropriately. Taruntaunk1970 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again requesting with kind followup to look at my request. Taruntaunk1970 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, My I request you to please look into and guide. Taruntaunk1970 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:33, 8 February 2017 review of submission by BartJong

[edit]


Can you please delete my rejected article about Bracmat completely? Or tell me how I can do it myself?

@BartJong:-- Done--It was nominated for speedy deletion per the correct criterion.Winged Blades Godric 07:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion

[edit]

I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Tomoaki sato because the article did not seem so overly promotional as to require a fundamental rewrite, and it did have reliable sources about the subject in question which is a strong indication of significance and potential notability. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also declined your speedy deletion nomination of High Cuisine because the article did not seem overly promotional and was out of scope of A7 (it was about an idea or concept, which isn't covered under A7). Appable (talk | contributions) 18:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I re-speedied it as G5 since it is identical to the creation by Ashishchopra778. Originally I retagged it as G11 as it was very clearly promotional but realized it was an AC creation. Cheers! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:49:26, 9 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Shubhagovil

[edit]


Shubhagovil (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Hi there, looking for help on my first article which is currently flagged. It is not much different than Google I/O conference page. In fact it is for a industry conference and not a vendor conf like Google I/O...so not sure what is missing to get it approved.[reply]

Check this history from Google I/O ___________ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goldenv (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 16 April 2008 (Added Google I/O wiki entry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision. (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Google I/O is a developer focused conference sponsored by Google to discuss web applications using Google and open web technologies.

The first conference was scheduled for May 28-29 2008.

External links Google I/O __________________

Shubhagovil (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)shuhbhagovil[reply]


@Shubhagovil:--Sorry, Wikipedia do not accept any article whose notability can't be proved/sourced.While Google I/O is definitely a notable one, I do not think the same could be said about DevNet Conf. too.But, well I can be wrong and to prove it just cite some non-trivial discussion of the conference in third-party reliable sources in the draft.Winged Blades Godric 09:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poojnm1985

[edit]

Dear, Winged Blades of Godric. Thanks for the review and the precious suggestions and comments. I have made some necessary edits as advised. Could you please take a look at the article, Draft:Samved School (2) and let know, if there are any more corrections required to be made, or is it ok and acceptable.

- Thanks and Reagards poojnm1985

@Poojnm1985:--I glanced through the draft but err... it is still not okay.I will be making some necessary changes once I am online again!Winged Blades Godric 09:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

[edit]

Hi, Godrich. Thanks for tagging Thomas H. Norstein. When you see an article like that, though (contents: "He was a guy", the rest of the history already deleted), it's better to tag it for speedy than PROD. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:--Thanks for your advice.Overlooked the A1 criterion there.Winged Blades Godric 16:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A3

[edit]

Hi Godric, thanks for your help patrolling new pages. Balla Keita (Professor) was tagged with A3 two minutes after being created. There is generally a 15 minute grace period before A3 or A1 are applied to an article (WP:NPP has more details). Just leaving an FYI for the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:--Thanks! Will be careful from next time onwards.Winged Blades Godric 16:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User Winged Blades of Godic

[edit]

Please, can you help me. The "Draft: Harald Specht" was not correct. I'm new here in Wikipedia and I have a question: Who can help me to bring an article design into the main room of wikipedia? I speak only little English, but the greater problem is, I do not know the techniques of System Wikipedia...

I did not understand what I did wrong.

In the Wikipedia-Help-Chat they sad me, that the most recent book of Harald Specht „Das Erbe des Heidentums“ was even in the last days repeatedly ranke bestseller by No. 1 (!!) in the AMAZON-Ranking and I have to write only this. But my English is too bad, to express it. And the Chat-friends had not time to help.

(So see for example the text from 13.2.2017 bei Amazon: Here the link from 13.2.2017: https://www.amazon.de/Das-Erbe-Heidentums-christlichen-Abendlands-ebook/dp/B0124O7ESK/ref=tmm_kin_sw... there you can see: „Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 5.0 von 5 Sternen 21 Kundenrezensionen Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 1 in Kindle-Shop > eBooks > Fachbücher > Geschichtswissenschaft > Vorgeschichte)

Now my question is: Are the bestseller-state and the ranking-place No. 1 notable enough? And is Amazon the additional reliable source for the subject, what you mean when you not supported?

If "yes", I don't know, how can I write it so that article is o.k. for the main article room. Can you help me here? Can you correct the article design for me?

Thanks for your help!

MrNerwjers Mr.Newjers (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont think making an appearance at the bestseller's list only oce makes the author notable for a Wikipedia article. Winged Blades Godric 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Re: asanas, as discussed on my talk. It's up. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:14, 14 February 2017 review of submission by Kristbaum

[edit]


Hello, there. This is the first article i've tried to get into wikipedia, so please excuse my noobness. I have added some more References, am I on the right track with this, or should I do something else? Kristbaum (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Lenovo P2, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I unreviewed it as your tags have been removed by the creator, so perhaps you could review it again to see of you want to readd them, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Re-reviewed it.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020

[edit]

The article merely reflects what's going on in the real world - the FEC's website confirms he has filed the paperwork. I agree with the author's removal of your PROD. The campaign may be too soon, the article isn't. Cabayi (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi:--Well, I won't say I'm satisfied but won't be taking that to AFD.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 15:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Levan Maruashvili

[edit]

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Help_me. --NeilN talk to me 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the "Challenge this deletion " button on Google chrome mobile browser, please help.

[edit]

please help Ratuls21 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reply yo request on deletion of article

[edit]

I want you to inform that my article states my achievement of 3 rd rank in the whole of India AIR 3 and not a small science olympiam so i request not to delete it and give me time for adding more stuff ! Harshsaini800 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for achieving AIR 3! But as it goes, it is not a suitable criterion under the purview of WP:NOTABILITY to deserve a stand-alone article.So, the WP:PROD.But I am sure, in future, you will meet our stringent criterion of notability and be featured in a stand-alone article here.Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 15:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

poojnm1985 ==

[edit]

Dear, Winged Blades of Godric. This is regarding the article, Draft:Samved School (2) . Its been under review, I am waiting for you to make the necessary edits. Could you please take a look at it, and let me know, if there are any major changes needed.

- Thanks and Regards poojnm1985

09:46:03, 22 February 2017 review of submission by Poojnm1985

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

poojnm1985

[edit]

Thanks for the edit, Sir Winged Blades of Godric. I have re-submitted the article, Could you Please review and let know if that's fine. -Thanks and Regards Poojnm1985

14:46:01, 22 February 2017 review of submission by Paulfranklinherman

[edit]


FYI ... "Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park" is not the same entity as "Starkey Wilderness Preserve". "Starkey Wilderness Preserve" is owned and managed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and is composed of the Serenova Tract, Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park, and the Anclote River Ranch Tract. The Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park is jointly owned by Pasco County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and is managed for recreational purposes by Pasco County Parks and Recreation Department. Saying that "Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park" cannot have a separate Wikipedia page from "Starkey Wilderness Preserve" is like saying that Florida cannot have its own page because there is already an article on the United States. In order for Wikipedia to offer a complete overview of Starkey Wilderness Preserve, there should also be separate - and more detailed - articles on Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park, the Serenova Tract, and the Anclote River Ranch Tract. As a local resident who has extensive knowledge of the entire preserve, I was going to author those articles ... but it has been such an effort just trying to get this article approved, I'm not sure its worth the effort. pfh 14:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
.Winged Blades Godric 14:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Source Warning

[edit]

Hi,

I added more references to Nina Betschart page. Can you review the page once again? Thanks...

Pedeshtrian (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:51, 24 February 2017 review of submission by WFink

[edit]


Could you please re-review this page? It has been significantly edited with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy in mind and provided with verifiable references. Thank you very much for your effort in advance.

You have erred... (Closing RFC on SUVs)

[edit]

...but non-rudely. I think the SUV RfC should stay open long enough to get some more input, especially from the gearhead and militarista factions. Anmccaff (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff:--Well, I have strong doubts.Taking into account the scanty participation and the fact that in 25 days no participant voted for the motion, I don't even find it probable that the proposal will gain enough traction all of a sudden, to reverse-gear from the current trend and be accepted from the WP:SNOW trend.And we can't let open a RFC for ad infimum on the hope some people from the factions you mention, will give his/her gracious views on the topic.But, if you still desire a reopening, ping me.Anyway, how do ya think?Winged Blades Godric 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you ought to reread the comments. They are all in favor of separating somehow the purely military and commercial vehicles, which is to say they are all in favor of changing the status quo, which now has them scattered in willy-nilly. The proposal, in fact, has unanimous traction. Anmccaff (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anmccaff:--Sorry,I thought you were supportive of the intermixing!Anyway, in the closing statement, I precisely said what you said in your prev. statement!Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you also closed the RfC before the people liable to actually act on it had even seen it, apparently. Anmccaff (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anmccaff:--Well going by the current condition of the RFC, I feel 25/30 is enough.If somebody with a contrary mindset missed the RFC in the 25 days despite it's exhaustive listing at diff. projects, chances are they will miss it in the next 5 too!I failed to get your statement--people liable to actually act on it!Winged Blades Godric 17:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway you can now proceed to cleaning up the article per the established consensus.Winged Blades Godric 17:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TripuraKnowledge (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Sir a very valid page with a lot of references got deleted, please review my opinion below and let me know if I need to revise anything

[edit]

Sir there is no doubt that the person in the page exist and he is the most famous police men in Tripura, India... I realy admire him. You can verify it by calling any random police station in the state of Tripura and then you can know better about him. You can understand by my word how confident I am. There are many local newspaper articles about this police men's good work, plus the page had got a lot of references. So it should not be deleted. It is not a hoax. It is truly real. Sir please do review the page I had created and undo and let me know if you want any changes in it. Sacrifies and high integrity of work of such soldiers should be noted. Thanks! TripuraKnowledge (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC) (TripuraKnowledge (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

page:https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Satyendra_Basu_Roy_Choudhury TripuraKnowledge (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Actually I am running quite low on my phone balance and thus least interested on calling random police stations in a state to enquire about how good one of their officers are! On a serious note please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source and what not.And your page was not deleted because it was a hoax.It was because it failed to even get close to our stringent notability guidelines.Winged Blades Godric 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:49, 27 February 2017 review of submission by Skire913

[edit]


I have made substantial changes to my article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Acute_Cardiac_Unloading per your suggestions. Whenever possible I have removed primary sources as references and replaced them with review articles, per your instructions. I have also removed any deductive reasoning to make this article read much less like a medical journal article, also per your suggestion. I think you will find the revised language and format much more in line with the expectations of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Has asked Doc James to review it.Check his talk page.Winged Blades Godric 16:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like undisclosed paid for advertising to me. Am cleaning up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Australia at the 2018 Winter Olympics. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I messed it up in a spate of hurry--needlessly closing an AFD discussion only to reopen it moments later.Why are bots so damn fast?I was just reverting the article back to the last version and then lo--an edit conflict!.Winged Blades Godric 13:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric/Archive_4&oldid=776083354"