User talk:Winged Blades of Godric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message


I think you understand basic Nepali language, please Google "प्रमोद खरेल" you will find reliable sources (all front line media in Nepal). Please don't oppose the request in reduction of protection level. Thanks --Binod Basnet (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi WBG! I have submitted the draft Draft:Pramod Kharel 2. All the citations are reliable. For the information --Binod Basnet (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Binod Basnet, that I'm active elsewhere does not mean that I'm bound to provide you an instant reply; unless I'm being held accountable for any of my actions. So, don't be childish and remove posts after a few hours.
I've seen the draft and will pass it after some copy-edits and culling of sources. WBGconverse 19:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Sorry for any mistakes. --Binod Basnet (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I created Pramod Kharel directly in mainspace. Please review the article. Thanks --Binod Basnet (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]


Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

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 2019.
Happy editing,

DBigXray 15:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates for us. Face-smile.svg--DBigXray 15:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

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.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:-Dispatching the entire bunch soon......WBGconverse 10:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:-- Done WBGconverse 12:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Got most of them, thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
Logo for ContentMine ScienceSource.svg

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.

Learning from Zotero

Zotero is free software for reference management by the Center for History and New Media: see Wikipedia:Citing sources with Zotero. It is also an active user community, and has broad-based language support.

Zotero logo

Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.

Zotero demo video

There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.

Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.


Diversitech, the latest ContentMine grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation, is in its community review stage until January 2.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Czechia moratorium[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask you, as on main article Czech Republic is in effect name moratorium until July 2019, doesn't that apply also on country data templates as CZE, CZ which are being changed over the Wikipedia templates now, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template? Thank you, --ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

ThecentreCZ, not a bright-line case and I need to dwell a bit on this locus. WBGconverse 05:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.



  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


...I'm not seeing the blatant errors Ammarpad is accused of making. Are you? Modernpaper co. appeared to be handled properly. I don't see anything about a bong using/weed smoking species of animal that eats pizza. My interactions with Ammarpad have been normal reviewing. Are you seeing something I'm not? Atsme✍🏻📧 04:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, Greetings of the new year:-)
If I am going to indulge in excessive nit-picking about Modernpaper co. (which Ritchie333 has now draftified); the timeline of major events goes as:-
  • Probably, the textbook definition of WP:BITE.
  • 5 minutes after the tagging; the author adds some quasi-spam-content and A3 was thus, void. He subsequently draftified the article, which though weird (given the state of the article), was probably per the request of the author on the article-t/p.
  • I don't see any fault; over the draftification. AGF, IAR and all that......
  • Soon afterwards, more spam was added and Ammarpad responded by slapping a G11, which was.
  • Pretty accurate.
  • Thereafter, it's primarily a contest between the author on one side and Ammarpad/GMG on the other side to keep the CSD-tags on the page; before it ultimately got deleted.
  • Again, nothing wrong, IMO.
To conclude, I don't get K's rationale (about not recognizing it as spam) and if I am compelled to oppose, using as the only locus, the first point concerning WP:BITE is miles better.
As to the other case concerning Ammarpad's dealing with weed smoking species of animal that eats pizza; I have no idea until some good samaritan chooses to un-delete it or provide the broader context. WBGconverse 06:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with you about bitey...but, look what just happened to me over Naman Ambavi and the confusion over the Draft:Naman Ambavi. Talk about a time sink for 3 or 4 different reviewers! I think the confusion began when the sock/creator tried to bypass the AfC declines and moved the article to mainspace himself - tried to get it out there as far back as 2013 - so I question the newbie concerns that were shown him considering his webmaster skills (plus the fact he never responded to any of our posts on his TP). Admins forgave his sock activity (when he deleted our CSDs) - they considered it a new user simply not logging in even though the evidence strongly supported socking and defiance to get his promo bio published. I think we also need to consider that our volunteers deserve at least equally as much consideration as we're giving newbies. Wish it was easier to find a middle button instead of full-speed ahead, or slower than a slug. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, entirely agree about the last point.
As to this specific case; the creator was lucky enough to have come across quite-considerate sysops. Any other day, he would have been blocked. FWIW, see this edit of mine which would have prevented you-folks from being gamed into launching AFDs. WBGconverse 10:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


I put the POV tag on this article because it is the most biased article I have ever seen. It states opinions as a matter of fact. The NPOV approach would be to describe the subject and what it purports to do, then describe the arguments for and against, with refs. The article doesn't do this. It expresses a point of view as if it is an indisputable fact. The bias is right there in the opening sentences of the intro, where it says "pseudoscientific", without providing even the pretence of a ref.

Sardaka (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't you know a biased article when you see it? Or are you one of the gatekeepers who look after this article and make sure it stays the way it is, which is biased?

Sardaka (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sardaka, I don't give a damn about your perceptions of bias in the article. If you wish to reinstate the tag/edits, you need to gain a consensus. See our dispute resolution ladder.
You might wish to note that Lead typically does not require citations because it's (sort of) a summary of the body; wherein all the stuff are rigorously cited.
Naturopathy is pseudoscience and there's not a whiff of doubt about it. Wikipedia is not a place where everyone's opinion is of equal validity and the only opinions that matter are of reliable sources. If the sources of the latter kind paint a subject as pseudoscience/BS; we go with that. As Jimbo sed, the work of lunatic charlatans is not the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. And we, as an encyclopedia will reflect the mainstream scientific discourse in our articles.
Coming to your editorial behavior, you are not only flouting a host of policies (including but not limited to WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE) but also indulging in intentional gaming of the system (3RR is not an entitlement) in an area governed by 2 discretionary sanctions, as notified on your t/p. When compounded with your IDHT behaviour and an indulgence in casting blatant personal attacks on opposing editors; your editorial future looks quite bleak in this area.
Move away or I will ask for a TBan at AE. WBGconverse 10:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
My last word: consensus means little when it's a consensus of the biased, which it is in this case. At WP, you occasionally find an article that is "looked after" by a cabal of editors who stop others from changing it. One user called them "gatekeepers", which is a good way of putting it. The naturopathy article is just one example. Therefore, I won't waste my time working on it anymore, because I can see I'm beating my head against a brick wall. Have a nice day. Sardaka (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Moving CreditMantri to draft status[edit]

Hi, We are part of them Brand team at CreditMantri and recently saw that the page was moved to draft status on 25th Nov.( As you may be aware, CreditMantri is a consumer facing company and offer products and services PAN India. Current and prospective customers search about us to get more information and hence the Wiki page is a great verified resource for the same.

Kindly let us know if we can help clarify concerns if any so that the page can be re-instated?

Thank you and looking forward to your response.CHtohCW (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Replying soon. WBGconverse 12:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your prompt response. We were wondering if you could also suggest a way we could reinstate this article at the earliest. As you may know, Wikipedia is a great way for a brand to establish its reputation, and we want to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines to have a presence of our brand on this platform. Do let us know if there is any change required from our end. We'll rectify the draft at the earliest to have it reinstated. Thanks again. CHtohCW (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, We were wondering if you had the chance to view our draft page. It would be really helpful for us if you could look into our request, as we want to resolve it as soon as possible. Please let us know the process we could apply to move our page back, and if you could also tell us the specific issues with our article that led its moving to drafts, we would ensure those issues are never repeated again. Thanks. CHtohCW (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


This [1] was an attempt to remove your post and just walk away from this stinking pile of poo. As it happens, you snuck in an edit right before my attempt to remove, so I ended up undoing your edit, which was not my intention. Sorry about that. Jehochman Talk 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, no qualms and certainly nothing to apologize for:-) Cheers! WBGconverse 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman:-YGM WBGconverse 19:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Just a couple of observations since I just fixed your relist at Talk:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. First, you added the Relisting template BEFORE the nominators signature, which the bot could not recognize. Please be sure to place the Relisting template AFTER the nominator's sig. Second, you relisted the debate after only six days. We should wait until an RM debate is at least seven days old before we relist it. Thank you for your contributions and Happy New Year! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Weird; somehow my scripts were displaying it to have been opened prior to 7 days. Placing the template before the sig was a silly error on my part. Thanks for informing me and have a great year:-) WBGconverse 05:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes scripts do weird things. Wouldn't hurt to double check them for awhile. And Happy New Year to you and yours! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

India FAR[edit]

Hi WBG, can you either change the indentation of your comment at WP:FAR#India, or change the word you in: "Can you list out all the changes that you &..." as I'm quite sure that you here doesn't mean Mathglot, as the indentation might lead others to infer. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done WBGconverse 10:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Murray Howe[edit]

Hey, I noticed you had added "Do NOT unmark, without notifying me." to Draft:Murray Howe and I think maybe you weren't. So just giving a headsup, it was unmarked as under review and is still pending. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

KylieTastic, this has an OTRS connection and we were conversing over there. Are you over OTRS? FWIW, it's a good decline with suboptimal reasons. I will copy-paste my comments from OTRS; soon.
@Jovanmilic97:, I expect you to notify the reviewer; if you are unmarking stuff in future. WBGconverse 10:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
No I've not been involved on the OTRS side of things, as long as your aware alls good. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones[edit]

Hi, and best wishes to the year 2019. I want to inform you about the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Systematic violations of active community sanctions by Smallbones. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Seen. No interest. WBGconverse 10:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-02[edit]

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


Per OMICS Publishing Group, numerous discussions and the fact that OMICS staff are banned for spamming, I typically remove OMICS journal citations, along with predatory open access and other known compromised sources. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Bengal Famine 1943[edit]

  • Saw your comments. Putting it in WP:PR for two months. You don't hafta commet if you don't want to. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
You've finally settled on an account? Goodness. WBGconverse 08:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A email I sent.....[edit]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:00, 12 January 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.

 << FR 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Seeing; I was inactive for a few days.WBGconverse 08:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Another 48 Hrs.? --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Or 127 hours? FOARP (talk)

Tech News: 2019-03[edit]