Open main menu

NPP InactivityEdit

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)

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)
@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)
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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Akiwo Arakawa (September 24)Edit

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: 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.
Missvain (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@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! WBGconverse 14:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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. WBGconverse 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

section reviewEdit

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)

" legal case against Wikimedia"Edit

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)

Courtesy noteEdit

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

September 2019Edit

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)

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. WBGconverse 14:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. WBGconverse 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User Talk RevertsEdit

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)


Hi there. 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)

@Govindaharihari:-No qualms; it happens :-) WBGconverse 08:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

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)

Replied. WBGconverse 08:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A Yogi's Guide to Edit Warring and Walled GardensEdit


You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know 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)

IP continuing your edit warEdit

This IP 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)

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.WBGconverse 13:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
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)

from your sourceEdit


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)

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. WBGconverse 05:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. WBGconverse 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. WBGconverse 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)

Need help in Copy editEdit

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)

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, WBGconverse 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
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)


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)

+1 Atsme Talk 📧 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed pictures from D. J. Sindh Government Science CollegeEdit

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)


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)

Only one very quick question! Unfamiliar with Indian clothing customs (bracelets)Edit

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)

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)
Return to the user page of "Winged Blades of Godric".