User talk:Eduemoni/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colin O'Donoghue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theatre Royal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

	Open Access Wikipedia Challenge
	You made the world more open by reusing Open Access Media on Wikipedia from the P2PU challenge - Bravo!

Maximilianklein (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 09:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use high quality references per

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. The ref to the

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please do not

Ghost

05:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Eduemoni, Could you offer some advice to me about how I might avoid an edit war at David_Bergman_(journalist). Please see my discussion with another person at Talk:David_Bergman_(journalist)#Sources. Is my argument correct? Is the other person allowed to use the F-bomb on the talk page? How can I avoid committing a 3RR when I think I'm in the right? I appreciate any constructive advice you have. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting bullshit warnings on my talk page, I have not attacked any editor nor made any personal attacks. Your templating is irresponsible. Learn what they actually mean before using them again. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page, never post there again. You appear to have no idea what you are doing, read

) 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Should I hide your messages, like you did on your own talkpage, naaaaaaaaah, I don't think so, it is funny how difs reveal your real intention, and how offensive and non-courteous you are. These messages show how frivolous you are. Assuming bad faith and insisting I know bollocks nothing of what I'm doing. It is indeed funny how thin the margin between vandal and anti-vandal is. Quote of the day: “You know nothing Eduemoni.” Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have hidden nothing, I reverted you because you accused me of making personal attacks, when I had not. And you did it three times. That is not assuming bad faith, it is your error not mine. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! I went to your page to remind you to stay civil and polite, but you came to mine telling me I'm putting bs on yours and calling me irresponsible, how is this not bad faith? If you had remained calm and cohesive, you would come here and discuss with argumentative words why you think I made mistakes and why it the 3RR wasn't your fault. I got involved into this by falling by parachute and all I saw was a meaningless discussion, and many offensive and blatant words spoken. I assumed a intrusive, but arbitrary position, because I felt it was necessary, I could judge you, because I analyzed what the situation, but you have no basis to claim what you say, there is no ground in it. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Eduemoni, you need to

Ghost

17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I got involved into this situation pretty randomly, I tried to remain calm and colaborate to a good outcome within the dispute which was happening in the article. However somehow I got into a situation that seems to be a open-fire, and I'm being shot. When I saw what was happening with Hindu Taliban, it was pretty clear a edit war was taking place, involving three editors, Darkness Shines was reverting their edits and he was partially responsible for the 3RR violation (he reverted editions four times in a row, which is violation of the rule, a temporary block is plausible), so I warned him and both the other two editors. Then I proceeded to check the article's talkpage and yet the user who had committed the content already started a discussion, asking why Darkness Shines was reverting his contribs. I noticed how foul-mouthed he was instead of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, he was using offensive words and were pointing out Ad hominem [1], so I felt it was necessary to notify him, even though conflict of interest arised, he was obnoxious to the scope of the article "this crap has no place here at all. he said. But the case in here is that he felt offended by the templateing, he feels way too important to being templataed, I've already dealt with users misbehaviors and even with admins which I notified through admin noticeboard. I asked for civility, yesterday, today another user came to my page complaining of a similar situation, I thought it was a complete different situation, but it was the same involved user, reverting edits, claiming they can't be verified, when he is too lazy to perform further research, he was asking the other user (through a arrogant tone) where the counterpart had gotten the sources, I presume (I don't assume), that he lacked both faith and civility (he mistrusted the other user, to the point of where I think he was about to claim fabrication of sources), Talk:David_Bergman_(journalist)#Sources, this is in the personal sphere, because he was harassing an user regarding a library, offline sources must provide excerpt or a scan, it seemed that he wanted to know what library he had gotten that source, the user can even refuse to give the source if it is critical, or secret, or just old (because it is hard to get old magazines and newspapers, because sometimes they are available to subscribers). I notified him twice, and you ask me if this is not a personal, he was being also disruptive in both these articles, he came to my page, into a offensive and intrusive way calling me irresponsible and that I do not know what I'm doing. How isn't this offensive? How can he assume I know nothing? How isn't this bad faith? If not his frivolous temper is really bad and he should get away from Wikipedia for awhile. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a few issues with what you just said. Don't template someone for incivility and then respond with incivility, that's the first issue. You then linked

Ghost

19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't get involved any further with this case, this is the solution for me. Thanks for the counsels, I really appreciate it. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you realize that you just welcomed

19:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG It was a mistake, I'm pretty sorry #blush# Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We all do it sooner or later - I rather think you'll escape the village stocks for this one. Thanks for the WikiProject invite, btw. I'm afraid I have to decline, since it's rather rare for me to edit a music article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, you can add me in village stocks if you want to :D

Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The section is unsourced. Please refrain from undoing my deletion again. The source is only for the last two lines, and it's not reliable. Stop or you will be reported. Bennyman (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fictitious section. The source (which only included the last two lines) cannot be properly reached from Wikipedia (or from a Google search). The other lines are just pure fiction. Try reading it and then try to find a source for the claim. It's anecdotal at best. If you can find a reliable source for it then by all means re-write that section. If not, leave it alone. You are not new to wikipedia, and you know that everything must be reliably sourced. Bennyman (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Bennyman, are you aware of

WP:OFFLINE? The source which was provided in the article is in fact verifiable. If you believe that a section is fiction, or fabricated, tag it, but at best do not remove. Emptying a section which was well sourced is considered as vandalism. Eduemoni^↑talk↓

16:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I looked into this. The book is available via Google Books, so that argument ("cannot be properly reached") is bogus, and even if it weren't, it doesn't make any sense. The page in question is here. There is a different problem, however, that neither of you seem to have noticed: the text in our article is a blatant copyright violation. I suggest one of you rewrite it, summarizing the argument into your own words. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I wrote it down in a sentence, and added a properly templated reference to the book originally cited. Bennyman, I think you should look before you leap. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've found three sources, from books, which in fact sustain what is told within the article ^{[1] [2] [3]}. And thanks for stepping in Drmies, should I warn Bennyman or should I let it pass? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• All right. Case closed. Thanks for clearing it up. Bennyman (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Benny, try to be less aggressive, and I suppose you didn't mean bad with that reversion, but you didn't understand that offline sources can be added, but even though they are hard to find, they are verifiable. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Martin Zwilling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to PASCAL and Assembler

Yesod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Abraham the Jew

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I answered your response (template:Welcomevandal-derived) to one of my recent edits on my talk page, and would very much like your reply, as my intention were very far from vandalistic. Sowilō (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your last edits on the page

) 14:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Presbyterians and Lent

Even if some Presbyterians do observe Lent, it is not a part of church doctrine, and more importantly none of the citations in the article support the claim that they do.Wminich (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is still nothing in the citations about Presbyterians observing lent. If you found a source supporting the claim then cite it or remove the claim.Wminich (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eduemoni, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Biggart

If you have a problem with material I have added, talk first. Wrong. If you want to add material in an article that isn't about that article subject, which violates both

) 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Shit! Geez, I'm sorry, I put the above message on the wrong editor's talk page! Sorry about that! Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to bring a smile to your face via my occasional incompetence. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I see you have changed

) 19:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiLove

I think it's exciting that I got WikiLove, especially because I didn't know about it until you put it on my talk page. I noticed that there's also WikiCrime, WikiHate, and WikiWar. Problem for you: Go to section 126 at the TOC of my user talk page. How would you categorize the comment that this user wrote?? Does it go in any of these categories?? Please explain using whatever detail you can. I suggest you define all 3 of these terms, as well as revealing which one this particular comment belongs in. Georgia guy (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Visually, I wouldn't say it's that much different, but it is an improvement. I hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox, but I've offered up a couple more options, mainly in relation to the placement of the column for references. What is your preference among the three? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've updated it in my sandbox, but I don't find it easier to maintain or that much of a visual improvement. I can just copy and paste the references from the previous week then update it for the next week, and I find it much easier to align each with the proper issue date by doing it that way too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 11:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

) 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Smiles

Aw, thanks. My day actually did get brightened a lot. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks : ) Have a nice day Intothefire (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Muito obrigado pela sua simpática estrelinha, Edu! O tempo em Lisboa está triste e ventoso... Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(Translation) Thank you for your friendly starlet Edu! Weather in Lisbon is sad and windy ... Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Translated by MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Source: [2]

Hello, thanks for the barnstar! I've gone ahead and corrected its spelling and added an automatic signature to it; the result is now at

03:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

(If you're wondering why it's not WVRMad posting this, see here)

Jr8825 (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, sorry about the edit war. Kinda got sucked into it since I thought User:Darkness Shines was just blanking stuff for broken links when in reality he had a problem with the source's content and article scope. Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Eduemoni, it looks like User:Darkness Shines is up to his old tricks again of blanking all content on Hindu Taliban he finds objectionable without a consensus on the talk page beforehand. I'm getting tired of this and I don't want to enter an edit war with him; could we get a topic ban going? Lostromantic (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So it looks like he's just citing WP as an excuse to go ahead with his blanket edits. I'm going to revert it all the way back to the original version of the article again--none of the editors look like they're justifying their edits of the page on the talk page. Still awaiting the admin protection of the page and administrative action re: User:Darkness Shines. We also need an NPOV admin (preferably one not involved in Wikiproject:India) to referee the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I weighed in on Darkness Shines at this noticeboard regarding his actions at Hindu Taliban. I think that, as a neutral 3rd party who weighed in on this content dispute, you should add your comments there as well. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#General_Behaviour Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Edumoni , Would appreciate to know is the spelling "Shinning" as used by you consciously intentional or an unconscious unintentional misspell. Made me smile either way ..if unintentional it made me smile ...if intentional ...and a prank ...the ingenuity made me smile : ) Intothefire (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, it was intentional, it was a prank, but now Graham87 fixed it as he stated above, some people may not get it. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 07:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back if you like, then. Graham87 06:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I never violated 3RR please redact your statement that I had. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the Happy face Star. You can have one of the cats that lives in my neighbourhood. Heh heh.

MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Graham87 08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 23:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

) 14:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Have a piece of this excellent Dobos torte, and enjoy the Spring Equinox. You deserve to take the rest of the day off! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

hmmm, yum, yummy, delicious, thanks! Eduemoni^↑talk↓

• I tried to say hello in the heading using my elbow, anyway have this, lol

You must have a very interesting elbow! Thank you for your timely encouragement. CsDix (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that. Did I do or not do something? or maybe a random act of kindness from you. Wow! Richard Avery (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That was so kind of you! Spencer^T♦C 04:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Right back at ya, big guy. :) Nightscream (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eduemoni! Your smile has livened my day so much I have smiled back at you! Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC) You can share the wikilove at any time by adding {{User:Eduemoni/Shining Smiling Star}} or {{User:Eduemoni/Shining Smiling Star|talkback}} on someone's talk page.

Your multiple nominations for deletion are disruptive, not funny. Please stop. RNealK (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Read up on the bolded sentence of

> 03:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

REMEMBER TO KEEP YOUR JOKES OUT OF ARTICLE SPACE, OR ANYWHERE ELSE WHERE A CASUAL READER COULD SEE THEM!. RNealK (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I was copying the top line of

) 03:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And now you need to stop edit warring on User:Jimbo Wales. Your deletion nom was closed and reverted. RNealK (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war? U need to stop notifying me and you should check out this page

Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2012, you along other users that are unaware of April's First on WP, can we have a nice day or not. Eduemoni^↑talk↓

03:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I kept the jokes out of article space. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You nominated Wikipedia for deletion. That's article space. I hope you get blocked for vandalism. RNealK (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@ 09:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Reward for those involved in April's First pranks

Oi, Eduemoni. Obrigado pela lembrança! Confesso que até me surpreendi quando vi o pedido mas logo depois me lembrei do dia (você fala português, certo?). Abraço.

msg

03:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools' Day

Hello Eduemoni! Your smile has livened my day so much I have smiled back at you! Mati 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC) You can share the wikilove at any time by adding {{User:Eduemoni/Shining Smiling Star}} or {{User:Eduemoni/Shining Smiling Star |talkback}} on someone's talk page.

If only we could have more days like this annually.

Mati

03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 13:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Bouchecl (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you helped me out with some citation errors on the Haynes Academy page. Thanks! There's still one more I'm having trouble with. Would you mind helping me out with that one too? Kslinker5493 (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eduemoni,

I reverted your edit to move all of the group members to the "past members" section of the infobox in TLC (group). However, if you can find a source that states that they have officially broken up, and make the necessary edits to the article to add that information, I will gladly revert my revert of your edit. Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 14:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't revert your changes on the Gospel for Asia page because it looks like you are actually trying to make a good article. However, I will make the following points for consideration

The missionary organisation has been surrounded by controversies events such as

Kerala Government filing petition aganist K P Yohannan in High Court[5], - This is fairly ambiguous

Kerala home minister had requested the help of central investigating agenies in tracking the money trail of Rs 1048 crores received by Gospel Of Asia[6], - How is this a controversy? This looks like a routine audit.

being accused of land grab [7], - The High Court of Kerala ruled on this in March 2013 and found Gospel for Asia and Harrison's Malayalam did nothing wrong and the government had overreached.

having a submission in the Kerala's High Court that the home department is investigating the functioning of Gospel For Asia[8], - this probe was actually requested by the home department in 2011, not 2012 as the article date states. And, the request was promptly rejected by the High Court. See http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hc-quashes-government-notice-to-believers-church/164052-60-122.html

K P Yohannan is not an ordained priest. He was only a local paster[9], - this does not involve Gospel for Asia

crores collected for charity and rehabilitation of Orphans used to purchace 2800 acres of land in Kerala. [10] - this reference does not back this allegation

LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

LoveYourNeighbor1 you are misleading http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hc-quashes-government-notice-to-believers-church/164052-60-122.html this link reports that the high court had quashed the government notice for aquiring cheruvally estate in position of the Believers Church. Its not mentioning anything about the enquiry ordered by the home department. There is a lot of difference between a revenue notice and a home department enquiry.

being accused of land grab [7], - The High Court of Kerala ruled on this in March 2013 and found Gospel for Asia and Harrison's Malayalam did nothing wrong and the government had overreached. - Can you quote any reference for this.

help of central investigating agenies - An investigating agency and Auditing agency are on different Zones.

Benedictdilton (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some one is removing the controversy section on the page

) 14:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

AIV report

Hello, Eduemoni. I have seen your report on

talk

) 07:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eduemoni. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Giuseppe Morosini, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: a postage stamp issued in his honour is enough to pass A7. There is an Italian article with more information and sources. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Some changes are being made on the controversy section on page K. P. Yohannan can you review and remove the tag on regarding the same.Benedictdilton (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Saudações. Where is the discussion about deleting this article? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eduemoni. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

11:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this allowed

This is in regard to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_for_Asia

somebody had started a new section Yohannan's response in the above mentioned page. Most of the reference on that section is pointing to their website only. I feel if such kind of sections are entertained then I feel we can same section comming up in all pages were seems to be some negative remarks and wikipedia will look more like a discussion board than an encyclopedia. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Since when are Members of Parliament and other national legislators "not notable"? To my knowledge, nobody has yet asserted that they aren't. Lekoren (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have declined all of those speedy deletion requests - as per

) 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Cookies!

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Eduemoni/Archive 4, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{ t • c ) 00:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

K. P. Yohannan, Believers Church and Gospel for Asia Contoversies

Hello Eduemoni, I noticed your involvement in the pages mentioned in the title, specifically in the Controversies section. I wanted to inquire about one of the sources that was just added today, namely here, Charity Terrorism – Is India a land of extremists and beggers ???, that was added this morning. In looking at this article, I noticed that many of the images and text are shared from this blog, http://bishopkpyohannan.blogspot.com/, as well as certain portions of text copied and pasted verbatim from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-archbishop-s-spiritual-factory/323561/. It appears to be a self-published article with its content taken from various blog posts.

explains that

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

I was hoping to bring up this source and its relevance in the Controversy section in these articles, as well as its seemingly questionable reliability. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

LivingIsSimple (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 00:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 09:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 22:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 11:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend,

I found your verdict to delete the stub of ACE_College_of_Engineering in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ACE_College_of_Engineering. I have put more details on the page. Its a regular educational institution and the verifiable details are furnished there. Please take a just decision. Afzal (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I just hope next time it won't be "random" but "deserved" :p --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The section of the article on the Catholic priesthood which discusses the recent child sex abuse scandals involving priests is poorly written and worded in such a way that it could very easily be construed as biased. While I agree that it is an important heading within the article, I decided that the material that was there should be deleted because it is sub-standard. 184.79.202.30 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) a user, as yet without a user account (though I will get one shortly)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

) 13:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are a member of the R&B project, would you be interested in voting and/or commenting at my

) 22:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's immoral. Inanygivenhole (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Insisting that they're vandalism won't change the fact that they aren't. Inanygivenhole (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Kindly have a look at this page

) 10:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

NAC

Hi mate! You NAC'd

02:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'll temporarily undo your close but we can reinstate it as soon as an admin deletes and salts. Cheers, Stalwart111 02:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, kind of, but not really. Have a look at the points at
  WP:SNOW keeps and already-deleted articles. If an AFD is still open after something has been speedy deleted by an admin, that's the time to use your NAC. Stalwart111
  23:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• When the outcome is clearly not a controversial speedy, it can't be considered BADNAC. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think you've misread that policy. It was a controversial speedy deletion (because it didn't qualify) and by closing it and having your speedy deletion tag rejected, the article doesn't actually get deleted. The point of
  WP:BADNAC is that you shouldn't close something as delete if it hasn't yet been deleted and if you don't have the capacity to delete it - both of those applied in this case. Replacing an ongoing AFD with a speedy deletion template is not the same thing as deletion, even if you think deletion is/should be inevitable. If you want to close AFDs as delete, you'll need the admin tools to do so. Beyond all of that, you were involved in the discussion, so closing it (admin or not) was inappropriate. Stalwart111
  05:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)