User talk:Godric on Leave/Archive 3

TC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Godric on Leave. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nihlus 08:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Seen just now.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

BTS SUGA

Hi...i saw you making an edit on BTS (band) page 1 hour ago. As the page is protected from vandalism and i can't correct an omission myself. The members don't include SUGA and show the band as a six member group instead of seven in the side box. Can you please correct it if it's still the same by the time you see this. Bloomgirl26 (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, initiate a t/p request.Am not comfortable enough about the topic.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Turkey RfC

I have been away so this is belated but did you really just unilaterally decide that Britannica and OUP and the World Factbook are not WP:RS based on some WP:RECENT press articles. Your closing vastly overreaches by attempting to preclude the addition of information based on sources that were not presented in the original RfC, and when I return to editing I intend to discuss whether Britannica is a WP:RS on WP:RS/n - you are welcome to participate in a community discussion there, I will ping you for it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Dharamshila Cancer Hospital and Research Centre

Hello, I'm Figfires. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dharamshila Cancer Hospital and Research Centre have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please get consensus before making such large changes.

@Figfites:--Quite remarkable!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 02:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 02:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Figfires:--Repinging. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 02:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that the page looks a little too promotional. Rather than removing most of the page, I would suggest discussing ways to improve the wording of the existing content (which may include removing bits and pieces). The article can easily be improved by changing the wording of certain phrases. --Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Figfires:--You can try that:)But I have little intentions in improving the article, which has all the hallmarks of paid editing/COI.Furthermore, as an advice, if there's any option to not send templated messages to editor's exceeding a certain edit count, please enable that.In totality, I or such high-edit-count editors have over 17,000 edits and are clue full enough to not be so unconstructive as to the extent of being reverted by Huggle/Stiki.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Turkey - RFC

Hi! I tried to focus on the democracy bit as that seems to be the major bone of contention and edit warring - this is Seraphim System's angle of attack throughout (in the original RFC and susbequent to it). I think Unitary can be removed from the RFC (it is not in contention - people who voted for full removal of the sentence from the lead really just ignored this bit (and it wouldn't have made sense to state this all by itself there)). I also think that democracy and parliamentary republic - should be combined to one question - they both relate to the form of government which is de-jure a parliamentary democracy, de-facto consensus is otherwise. In summation, I suggest you trim this down to three questions - Democracy (in the de-facto sense in Wiki's voice), Secular, and diverse cultural heritage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Concretely - the easiest to tackle (both in sources, which have been provided both ways, and discussion) and in terms of prior consensus is democracy - while it is also the focus of edit-warring (and in August - a retaliatory edit on Israel!) - which is why I think there is merit to running this one separately from the other two.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:--I have got enough after-effects of closing the fateful RFC and will strongly voice that this time it moves forward as a 5-sectioned one.As to unitary, one/two(??) voted for it's inclusion in the orig. RFC but opposed some of the other parts. And, I don't want Seraphim or whoever to go on another round of drama vouching for it's inclusion, after this RFC is closed on the grounds that there was no new disc. on it etc.But, I could give you some leeway to combine democracy and parliamentary republic under one sub-header.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should combine the government system (maybe separate de-jure and de-facto). Regarding unitary - I don't think it is in contention. I would vote to state Turkey is unitary - it just isn't lead worthy by itself - for the most part it was simply ignored by participants. I agree drama here is excessive. I suggest we work article wide, and not sentence specific regarding use of Wiki's voice, and address:

1. Secular
2. Culturally diverse (removing heritage which is unspecified and hard to quantify)
3. Currently a de-facto democracy (de-jure - it is. But as was stated by others this can be said of many countries - including DPRK for instance).
4. Unitary (I would omit).Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This looks good.But, wouldn't Seraphim and some others have an objection to removing heritage from scope of the disc.As to democracy, I agree, de-jure--it is.But,the controversy is about the de-facto condition!Your opening comment on the sub-header can inform !voter(s) of the broad focus of the dispute rel. to the word.On a separate note, shalln't the scope of the RFC be only about the lead? In body, where the details are described fully, one has reasonable scope to mention the details and conflicting view-points of sources etc. A too-broad-scoped RFC often fails to come to a good conclusion.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think one of the problems with the original RfC was that it addressed the lead only - without addressing the body, as well as tying multiple issues together.

Editing, at least regarding democracy (which seems to have been the original main intent of the opener - as well as Seraphim's main issue poast-close) - has moved beyond the lead - and addressing it should be consistent throughout the article.

Regarding the "Culturally diverse" or "multicultural" vs. "diverse cultural heritage" - heritage wording is really puffery, and very hard to quantify - which led to problems in the original RfC. For instance, on the merits - The Ottoman empire (and in particular the core modern-day Turkey) was highly diverse (in any quantifiable measure!) in 1880. The post-Ottoman areas (and in particular modern day Turkey, but also other regions (e.g. Population exchange between Greece and Turkey) - was not so in 1930 (and today - e.g. per Fearon you can see here List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level). Would you say a modern New World country (e.g. Cananda or Australia) has a "diverse cultural heritage" based on the pre-colonization history? It's a big tangle - this particular issue (as opposed to form of government) really is lede specific (and there should be a large corpus of body text describing the history and current makeup) - and the moment you throw in "heritage" - it is very hard to quantify (for any country/region!) - which make a possibly contentious issue more hard to resolve.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait!Will be making soem changes in the format!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding democracy - take a look at this diff attempt to place democracy in the infobox and diff attempt to reword democracy in lead - coupled with the ANI commentary by Seraphim - I think this is the more pressing issue to pin down (it also, per my count, was in consensus by all editors in the RfC - though the discussion digressed and was non-specific). Agree staying the RfC was correct to work on formatting.Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:--See the changes.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge?

ticket:2017072510014582

Did you ever follow up on your plans to propose a merger? I do see that you proposed it to the principal editor who declined and I get the impression you were going to propose it somewhere, but I'm not sure whether it is further has taken place. (I'm trying to close some old tickets so just trying to figure out where we are on this one).--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have another thought, as I see that the largest single editor of both articles is the same person, so I'm thinking of dropping a note there; let me know if you've already done something which would make my request moot.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:Nope, entirely forgot about the issue after raising it with Eppstein and acc. failed to propose any concrete solution.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's quite alright; there's more than enough stuff to do around here I just didn't want to take action and find out you had done something I missed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam: Extreme VS Force

@Winged Blades of Godric: Not sure I understood the intent of your edit summary, if you could elaborate. Plot sections are typically unsourced, which is fine by almost all MOS guidelines on plot due to the primary work being the assumed source. (Both MOS:FILM and MOS:VG concur there). As for the gameplay section, while it lacks in line cites right now, the sources in the article appear to cover and verify it. I'll certainly be working on it some more though, including inlining. -- ferret (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret:--It seems that I was wrong! That was a good revert.Cheers:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel script

Ping isn't working atm, so I thought I'd drop you a note that my revdel script now runs when viewing the page (i.e. you don't need to be on the edit screen). Primefac (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac:--Thank for the information.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Question for you...

Just curious...are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Dealing_with_inactive_WikiProjects and Wikipedia:Project_namespace#Deletion_of_project_pages? When I asked for my project to be Userfied, it should have been userfied without further ado. What policy are you citing that says the project I created can't be moved back without consensus? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The guideline does not explicitly describes cases where somebody wishes to re-instate a project which had been userified by consensus.And given the controversial nature of the project, as evident from the talk-page discussions, it's better to do an RFC, ask for community opinion and move it back, once you set up all the things in their places.Like the Editor Review was shut down years ago, on grounds of inactivity and since Alex wished to revive it, he launched an RFC.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, it does not mandatorily need to be a RFC, if you manage to get several editor's involved in the project, that could be a sign for it too! Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I basically adviced against any sort of Unilateral move. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please change your close so the consensus part is removed. Inactive projects are not supposed to be MFD'd - read the guideline... they're supposed to be userfied. As far as I know, a nonadmin close cannot make such a determination anyway. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The guideline states: Userfy. When a project has only one active participant or was never so active as to justify keeping it for the whole community to refer to, consider userfication of the project to the organizer's userspace. This is particularly useful for recently created projects that never got off the ground as it can avoid being bitey. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Whilst, the MFDing seems to be not blatantly violative, I have edited out the concerned part to make it non-binding.But given the comments at t/p by numerous highly experienced folks and the far-reaching-imlication(s) of such a project (once it takes off), I would personally prefer that you ask for the opinion of the community at large about the same.Best wishes and regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spot the Dog

Thanks for closing that move review. Out of curiousity, why didn't you pick a title to move to per WP:THREEOUTCOMES? TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:--Eh! Blame me squarely for that! Chose a title to move, switched to OTRS queues and forgot the issue in its entirety.Absent-minded me.By, the way, would you be willing to look and comment at this thread on my talk?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:-- Done--Take a look and please execute the page move for me!Without my locked away PM right, the move can't be done!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm on mobile, was involved with the move review, and haven't had my coffee yet ;-). Just list it at WP:RM/TR with a note/link to the move review close. You might want to also make a note in that close as to the new title. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that would be a good idea:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

TFD

I'll take care of the 8 Oct TFDs when they roll over, just since there are so many to soft delete. No point in you wasting a half-hundred edits. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Is... " fantasy-filled pseudo-troll-like" really adding much to the discussion there? There has already been a substantive rebuttal. I'm not totally sure leaning over their shoulder and say "Yeah! Take that!" is... really needed. GMG^talk 12:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:--Sorry, I beg to differ.I did not find any words that would be more suitable enough to describe his !voting patterns at numerous RfAs over the course of several year(s).Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And I see that despite the comment which was undoubtably not very heart-warming, I have been thanked thrice by three long-standing sysops.That gives you an idea about how we feel about our resident-opposer at RFAs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you like my new user page?

Do you want my twin's birthday on it? --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@I Have Always Been a Twin:--The new user-page more or less fits our policy.But be careful about divulging too much personal information.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm the Merrell twins Wednesdays now not young anymore! They should be Hutchinson and Feist! --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sleep > Drama

Sleep > Wikidrama. Try it some time

Plip!

Don't stir the pot please eh? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime:-On retrospection, the size of the trout could have been definitely bigger:)A good sleep and some time away from Griffithis bound to change perspective(s)Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have just what you need:  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough! ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Godric on Leave. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Yashovardhan (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Modification to page Laser Harp

I see you reverted the modification I made about Laser Harp, telling that there's a conflict of interest. Not at all. Nothing up there is mine. I'm passionate about LHs and I follow this instrument's argument since years. I DID check the site and the published project is free (OpenSource) and also free from advertising. Thus please revert your "revert", because there is not any reason do not be there. Thanks a lot Staminale (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Staminale:WP is not a promotional medium even for free, open source projects.That line adds nothing to the topic, except a bout of self-sourced claims aimed at self-promotion.If you could source the paragraph to non-promotional, reliable source(s), feel free to re-approach me.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave: I do agree with your point, however I'm not in relation with that at all. It's not mine, I'm not the designer, I just follow this argument i do like/love. In my life I do totally different stuff rather than this. And I do believe this open source project is something can stay on WP, that's why I did revert it, and still convinced it should be there as completion of information. Have a great Week end Staminale (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there's no harm in including it in the external links section, but the promotional prose cited to refspam was inappropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist:--As far as I remember, there was an OTRS ticket which stated that somebody was intentionally trying to malign the open-source project by aligning it with commercial ventures, domain-encroachment etc. and a whole lot of other things.So, I thought that the best way-out, (with the shortest expenditure of resources) will be to remove all the concerned refs, which are after-all non-necessary.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw that OTRS ticket (the words "laser harp" made me curious enough to look at the article) but I didn't pick it up. You may have noticed that yesterday I removed a paragraph naming all sorts of non-notable people, cited to a bunch of refspam. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Suga (entertainer)

Hi! Why you delete Suga's Wikipedia Suga (entertainer)? Enlighten me more. Thank You! --CPDM 08:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Paula, I converted the article into a redirect, as a consequence of the discussion that was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga (entertainer), over the span of 3 weeks, where most participants concurred that the subject failed to garner enough notability for a stand-alone article.If you feel my decision was wrong, you may approach WP:DRV.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Janam Janam

Hello Godric

You marked Janam Janam as needing to be merged with Dilwale (2015 film) on 21 July 2017, but this has not been done, the page it is supposed to be merged with is protected, so I can't edit it, but I made the content to be merged into a neat section to make it easier. Could you do the merge please?

Emblyn Kerensa (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please update instead of revert

Please instead of revert update/fix the entry. There is no button, and it is absolutely impossible to find the page where I am supposed to contest the speedy deletion. I accept that you know better, please then fix the link and include the proper page! Thanks. --grin ✎ 10:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grin:--The message that was posted to your t/p by the CSD-tagger contained:--

If you think this page should not be deleted, for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion"......

However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay.....If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

Now, that the page has been already deleted before you could make it out to the article talk-page, and that it is a red-link, the second paragraph applies.

If, I click on the link of deleting administrator, I see a log entry which states Cullen328 deleted the page due to it satisfying A7.So, the obvious step from your end would be to approach Cullen328 at his t/p, as is already mentioned in the message.

And in the meanwhile, as you must have understood, no change in the CSD page was warranted.DRV is applicable iff he refuses to issue a refund and you challenge his decision.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

...whiiiich allows loads of editors to take turns at it rather than just the lone admin  ;) ...

Heh, thanks. The problem is, as you clearly noticed, that the CSD tagger template is misleading, since it's only valid for that 45 seconds between speedy nomination and deletion. I am not quite active on enwp nowadays so I do not feel like hunting down who tends to the notification bot and have the template updated then debate throughout the CSD page; it obviously needs to cover the case when the article was already deleted.

I try to discuss it with the Lone Admin already, thanks; the problem is what an Average Joe can do when s/he sees the message and try to find the non-existant button, and then have low chance to figure out who the admin is, and that s/he should be contacted. In this context the CSD page is not helping either: there is no button, as Neo would say. Either should mention what's when there is no button, or shall link to some relevant pages instead of a completely useless and irrelevant one (about what a talk page is, which is absolutely useless in that context). So this ought to be fixed in more than one places. Your help may be appreciated, in case you wish to spare it. ;-) --grin ✎ 17:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Grin::--Hmm...Actually, 45 seconds is pretty extremal.My experience says that the avg. life-time of a validly CSD tagged page (except in G2/G12 etc.) is somewhere, definitely more than half-an-hour!

Also, as pointed out in my prev. reply, the template pretty well cover(s) the case when the article was already deleted.One does need to have some more patience and read through the entirety of it.(tl;dr has not attacked the template yet!)An average newbie in most circumstances figures out that once the page is a red-link, all the advice given in the upper half of the template is of little help.And, clicking the link for deletion log, in the second half, easily leads to the deleting-sysop and his t/p.So, I don't see any reason for any changes:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

But, it may well be the fact that I am not able to experience the system from a beginner's perspective, due to my adaptation to the process!

Also, as a side-note, (as two of our most-experienced editors have said), physical existence and mention in source do not correspond to claim of significance.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Closure

This was closed based on a vote count.Template talk:Donald Trump series#RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia. This seems like it is against policy and should be reviewed.Casprings (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings:--Sorry, vote counts in such cases--where little weighing of arguments could be done, are not against policy.If you desire, AN looks like the sole way out.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Please note you are mentioned here at ANI. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

AKD Group

I don't think Del Rev is the right way--it it goes there I will argue that AfD 2 (3) is necessary, because there is nothing really wrong with the closure. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

However valid one's argument(s) may be, one can't re-open an XFD on a topic, that was closed only 3 days back as keep, sans addition of some excellent new arguments.And, when the crux of the second nomination statement is that the closure of 1st AFD was wrong and that it failed to weigh consensus properly, a visit to the closer's t/p followed by an optional DRV is the way out.That being said, anyone can perfectly float a new AfD on the topic, now.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, see User talk:SoWhy/Archive 27#AKD Group, a thread that caught my eyes just now.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:07, 31 October