User talk:Godric on Leave/Archive 2

TC)

Phys.org#Edits DRN
I wanted to follow up on the recent 'Phys.org#Edits today' DRN. Will you be updating the page? If you have no time, I can offer my help with this. Naesco (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Will be adding/making the changes very tomorrow--in my first edit.Sorry for the delay:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 18:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to make the edit? Naesco (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder ;) Naesco (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --In the event of me failing to do it within a day, please proceed yourself according to the exact wordings of the last proposed lead at DRN and ping me after the edit. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * & : The page has been updated. Naesco (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year
I'm curious about your decision to intervene here by reinstating the changes made by Toddst prior to the discussion being closed. What was the reasoning behind this? It could be interpreted as tag-teaming. Deb (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Well, the reasons were explicitly mentioned in the edit summary.As, I said at ANI, launch a RFC and seek community opinion. But, surely if you see somebody reverting entries based on failing these criteria feel free to revert. As to your interpretations, you are free to have them.But, it may be prudential to mention that (barring my memory failing me), it's my first interaction with Toddst1 and I didn't particularly like your's landing up at a page after a month overruling the four-editors who had formed a mini-consensus.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want me to convert that into an RFC, I can gladly do that for you! Yeah, even I'm not particularly appreciative of Toddst's actions but...... Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder, have you looked at the history of the discussion? There were three editors involved in the initial discussion, which lasted all of five days and was not closed when Toddst made his change to the Project page - and only one of them was actually a member of the project. The rest of us "landed up" there when weight started being thrown around, like this. Sure, I should have had the page on my watchlist, but I think you know that's never a guarantee of spotting something at the time it's done. I did not revert his change to the project page until the number of votes for and against was equal. Deb (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Firstly, non-project members have equal rights to raise their concerns about anything they find to be a mis-fit. Secondly, I re-reviewed Toddst's entire course of actions and I failed to see any mistake comitted by him.On 16th July 2017, Toddst opened a discussion about the issue. After 4 days, there were 3 supports--from long-standing contributors and nil oppose(s).On 21st, being bold, he incorporated the changes.On 18th August, (nearly a month afterwards), you participated and commented in a discussion, in a thread very below our concened thread but somehow missed(??) the prev .thread.Now, finally, on 11th September, you put an oppose! vote in the concerned thread (after being pinged on a user t/p) and all three of the pinged users subsequently opposed.(That is you-all resumed the discussion after a time-gap of about two months).Also t/p discussions don't work in the way that, the one side who manages to get a momentary lead, manages to re-instate his preferred version of content/policy on a page.So ...until the number of votes for and against was equal fails to make much sense to me.And, yet again, I fail to see any other method than launching a RFC to re-inforce the previous change.Thanks! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Something tangentially related to the theme of the topic under discussion may be viewed at WT:RY.Cheers:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can only say I'm baffled by your logic. I never suggested that non-project members should not have a say; I merely pointed out that no project members other than himself had participated at the point where he introduced his favoured wording. It should have been clear to you from the history that Todd had altered the order of the contributions to make it appear that my reversion of his edit was against consensus - which it was not. He fooled you. Deb (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Deb, you really need to stop with these bullshit accusations and bad faith. I mean, you're an admin who edit warred, canvassed and now making bad-faith personal attacks, all related to a discussion regarding one of our most basic policies that you disagree with. This would be unacceptable from any editor.    I'm starting to thing that  and  were right, . Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was manoeuvring through the next edit button in page history diif-viewing mode.So /But I have no idea about the alteration of order(s) etc.If that was about the adding of a sub-header, I don't see anthing massively problematic/disruptive. At any cost, now that a RfC has been launched, I fail to see any real progress coming out of this mini-discussion given that we seem to be talking past each other and wasting our valuable time.So, let's dissuade gently! With warm regards:) Winged Blades Godric 18:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I re-ordered nothing. Deb is making stuff up now. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you still feel, that my actions were unwarranted or failed to abide by policies or failed to assess the situation correctly et al(which may be perfectly plausible), feel free to approach the broader community at AN.Thank you! Winged Blades Godric 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How Legobot works
Re : see Template talk:Rfc top, look for the word "five". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --I was actually thinking of going to your t/p to ask the issue.And voila! You are there! That was an informative read. Many thanks for making me aware about the exact issues behind the bug.By the way, I have faced the problem twice or thrice and would have surely supported the move; since chance of LegoKTM ever amending his bot-code is practically nil.(See this thread.) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * wasn't necessary, since it was a normal page move and the redirect that was left behind served to take people to the new location. The necessity for was that the new location of the RfC wasn't due to a page move - the RfC was cut&pasted from one page to another, and so no redirection was possible.
 * The test is: if you are on WP:RFC/A (or another RfC listing page), and you click one of the boldfaced links at the start of an entry, does it take you to the "An editor has requested comments ..." box at the actual RfC? If it does, the rfcid may be left alone. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Prior to my forced re-IDing, what was visible from the WP:RFC/ALL page was a red-linked section header.As I clicked it led to a deleted page with the logs showing a page move (which was apparently closed as successful two days after the RFC was initiated). It may be noted, that the old page was not even a redirect. Only as I clicked on the move-target in the log, I came across the RFC.Thus I removed the tag to make Legobot directly recognize the new target.Hope this clears up the issue. Winged Blades Godric 04:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Closure at Talk:Donald Trump
Hi, Godric! Are you still working on this closure] at the Donald Trump talk page? I just wondered because it's been a couple of days since you tagged it. I realize that it is complex and hard to read, and may take a while to work out. And we all do appreciate your willingness to deal with it! --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! --I appreciate yours' bringing the issue to my attention.It's awkward since I seemed to be under the impression that I have already closed it!(The edit was prob. not saved somehow.)Anyways it will be a day before I could get my hands on my PC and will surely try to post the close by tomorrow night (IST).Again, thanks for your kind words and sincere regrets for the delay. Winged Blades Godric 15:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Happens to me all the time. You can probably blame "edit conflict". --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --✅Hi, I've closed the disc.Regards:). Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall
Hi Godric on Leave. I saw that you have recently closed this AfD. I understand that the time limit was reached though unfortunately I was busy and wasn't able to reply there. Basically, what I am trying to understand is, how do we decide where to redirect targets. In this case, it is a community hall named after an individual. But geographically and culturally, it is part of the Kollam Cantonment. (That's the function of community halls). Another editor had quoted an example of the Gandhi Smriti, but that was an entire museum dedicated to showcasing the life of Mahatma Gandhi. On the other hand, this town hall is named after C Kesavan. Otherwise, it simply serves as a town hall for local community events. This is similar to Nelson Mandela Road in Delhi which serves as an arterial road. If I had a choice to redirect Nelson Mandela Road, I would probably redirect it to Vasant Kunj, or List of Roads in Delhi or South Delhi. But I don't think I would redirect it to Nelson Mandela. I am interested to know your reason as to why the article about the individual is a better redirect target than the article about the locality.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --.Somehow or the other my device and/or my hands seem to be conspiring against my mind.The target should have been easily Kollam Cantonment. At least, that's what I thought of while executing the close! But somehow it got messed up! And I ought to have double-checked the close. Also, your argument is spot-on.Pinging out of courtesy.  Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the change. Were you using a mobile phone by any chance? Recently I tried using my phone browser to edit, but I find it quite cumbersome. I had to switch to the "desktop view" for the page to load properly. Even then, I made a few typos. Since then, I have decided to stick to desktop editing.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, trying the desktop-mode from a smart-phone. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Like I mentioned in the Afd, I'm okay with any redirect. Thanks (and yeah, the mobile mode really messes it up sometimes).  Lourdes  04:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Westworld / spoilers
I accidentally overlooked the tag/banner and added a small reply to the last rtc response. My apologies. Nothing that hasn't been said before. It won't bother you and it's barely worth the extra edit to revert, but feel free to do so if you want. (Edit: and thank you for closing this complex discusion. As far as I'm concerned, please take all the time you need) PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am declining to close the disc. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Harp and bowl
I see you closed Articles for deletion/Harp and bowl as "speedy keep". Obviously, I'm glad it was kept, but you will need to expand your rationale I think - the nominator does not appear to have withdrawn, so I can't think why the discussion would not run its course. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Winged Blades of Godric On leave 03:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rouse High School
Hi. When relisting, simple relisting is enough. Pedagogic comments are best left out and the decision left to the closing admin. That said, due to this new trend of multiple relisting and relist comments, there may soon be an RfC to limit who may in fact relist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Sorry, but on this occasional instance, I beg to differ! It's not pedagogic. Re-inforcing a clear community consensus among the future !voters in a scenario where there has been a surprising trend to !vote in a particular manner, contrary to well-established and unchallenged consensus is not teaching. A relister's role is to help to the best of his efforts in the un-ravelling of a clear and  policy-based  consensus of a complete discussion and uphold some of the most important points at WP:ATA (though I myself feel that much of the guideline could be never implemented realistically) (esp. if the elapsed time is just one week and one could do away without a close).And 3 of the !votes were along the lines that I mentioned.(I know the implementation of the Schools RFC has been viewed to be problematic but I somehow tend to completely align with the views held on the issue by Rob at User talk:BU Rob13/Archive 8 i.e. An unchallenged close is always valid). Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At any case, if you go through my XFD history, you will merrily find that I rarely comment except in extreme cases or some 3rd relists.Also, I am yet to discover any trend of relist-comments once SoWhy stopped.Anyways, I am actively trying my best to prevent multiple relisting (which is un-debatably a serious problem) and have informed the 5-6 faulty re-listers (IMO) in the recent-days to re-read WP:NOQUORUM prior to relisting any further AfD.It would be interesting to note the outcomes i.e. whether a new bunch rises to grab the job and again have to be informed of related policies.All these being said, I look gleefully towards the prospects of any such RFC. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree - you 'somehow tend to completely align with the views held on the issue by Rob' which means yu are influencing the voters. It's not the relister's job to tell voters what to do. Voters can say what they like whether citing a guideline or not, and it's up to the closer to decide if their arguments are valid. That's how it always has been at least over the last 7 years since I've been an admin. The RfC will probably call for putting an end to NAC and non admin relisting. And chances are, that with so many socks trying to protect their paid-for articles for deletion, and an incresing lack of accuracy by NAC, the RfC might pass. It makes sense. Even the accredited New Page Reviewers still have an unacceptable level of inaccuracy in their patrolls and that's why many articles land at RfA that shouldn't be there.  See the RfC: treating_these_like_PRODs - which non admins can't delete anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (U