Talk:Vidyut Gore/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article development

At this moment if anyone needs to talk about article development please consider first to talk to me on my talk page. I initially wish to add some templates about the AfD/DRV and possibly do an article rename and creating a workpage in the first instance. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC) I've now done some admin stuff and created a workpage. Some initial tasks will include:

• Gathering references for examination on the workpage.
• Considering the edits performed by Vidyutblogger (now backed out) and considering them as a requested change. Where information we have differs (for example I think year of birth is an issue) then this needs to be resolved. Where additional information has been suggested this must be treated with due diligence that confirms to WP:V etc. etc.
• Changing the name Kale to Gore (of Vidyut) throughout.

22:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark. Fair play to you for trying to rescue this BLP. I felt I had several WP:SIGCOVs at its AfD (plus other RS), but an unusual argument, forcefully made, that these were invalid because of being part of the same corporate media group (despite different editorial boards etc.), was ruled correct (by implication). I didn't realise it went to DRV and that SpinningSpark contested this view and took it to the RS Noticeboard, but the DRV closed first. My understanding (and naivety) about this BLP subject is that she is "hated" by the ruling BJP party as she has embarrassed them publicly (hence the AfD nomination by a WP:SOCK, and the policy-free arguments of many of the "deletes" with little discussion on sources). I think that the issue of sources being part of the corporate media grouping would need to be properly ruled on first, or it will get rapidly re-AfD'ed again, and the same SOCKS/BJP-supporters will probably re-appear; however, ruled on properly, then it cannot be deleted. The AfD fried my mind and killed my enthusiasm for WP (plus RL began to get busy); I have a decent AfD record (and of AfD rescues), but never experienced an AfD where the more RS I added, the greater, and harder, the push-back I received. People clearly feel very strongly about this subject. I wish you better luck than I had and hope you come out better for it. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance. Thanks. I had ANI on watchlist (bad idea) for another thread and seen your monicker flash by ... noted NHN/SNdMP on it as well ... and followed it and well ... then WBG and RH. Phew. Did you forget to say Hello Little Fairies on the green looking north at Charlemont 'cos you can get taken for a ride per #17. Apart from the WP:RS issues I also note concerns your good faith edits were WP:PUFFERY possibly because some of the sources may be regarded as for instance feature journalism (I'm not great at journalist genre's) where there can be some license to bloat the facts. To take a different example: The story [1] indicates an insurrection by the volunteers however it was almost certainly stage managed by the producers and reported that way for a better story. So I feel the sources have to be carefully considered here for such things for example, especially at this is a WP:BIOL. In short I feel there is a risk at least some puffery may have slipped through in the need to demonstrate notability. Especially given possible scrutiny that will need to be elimated. There's also a need to minimise anything that could be regarded as promotional wherever possible. One method was to roll everything back and rebuild with extreme care in user space (closer JBW was not totally comfortable with this perhaps as if while technically correct as I may get over attributed), the other is to toothcomb through in draft space which is sort of now the route I will be taking. One point ... is it OK if I move the references to the reflist so I can manage them more easily when source editing .... ... so much RL to do + must watch Hear My Song ... thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem with that; whatever you feel you need to do. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have now completed considering the edits made by Vidyutblogger and worked through changes necessary to change surname to Gore. I have also made some small changes which I hope reduce what some might see as promotionalism without altering content. I now need to work on the references. Part of this will ensure they are have useful name tabs that can be referred to, some already have these and I may tweak them for clarity and reference, and ultimately I intend to use the workpage for catalog purposes and also for holding unused and removed references. But I also intend to move references to the reflist for grouping and embellishment purposes. While this is against WP:CITEVAR in to be avoided it can be useful during a rescue and for cite embellishment and splitting from the prose keeps the prose source neater when not using the interactive editor and especially when archives are added (which this article currently doesn't with possible linkrot issues. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added some references to #AltSarkar (a spoof Twitter govt) on the Notes page. Not sure if that is the right way to do it. Vidyutblogger (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's perfectly fine ... my answer is short due to COI/neutrality considerations. In an ideal world I'd love to go over the notes page ... in practice I have RL priorities and thereafter I make choices on what of several articles I choose to progress at any point in time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• didn't intend to imply any hurry about the page or even that it should be made at all. There is a list of resources, I came to the page looking for an old reference, so thought I'd add the new ones there. Vidyutblogger (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)