User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 10

Only warning from a brave admin
Since you don't care about the previous warning, let me be abundantly clear: if you continue making accusations in defiance of evidence (and abusing a template to do it; read the documentation for spa before using it again), and/or if you engage in any additional violations of WP:CIV such as the one you just left at my talk page, you will be blocked without further warning. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * --Do not use civility as a shield to deflect off criticism of your continued over-the-top actions! And yet again, do not threaten me on hopelessly pointless grounds.Cheers:) Winged Blades Godric 04:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What to do with RfCs?
Hello again. I left you a ping at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. BTW, I found out recently that you are on a wikibreak. Therefore, do you still want to volunteer the joint closure of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy? I'd like a response please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --I somehow missed or did not receive the ping.I will be closing it within today.Just forgot about the issue entirely!And yeah am willing to close the referrer RFC.See my comments on Cyberpower's talk. Winged Blades Godric 04:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you and Cyberpower678 are willing to close the RFC referrer discussion without needing any more closers, then please go ahead. I don't mind. Thanks again. --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging .Any comments/replies to the question asked by Cyberpower?If everything is all-clear, I wish to proceed!Cheers:) Winged Blades Godric 04:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Having three or more closers is just my preference. Oddly enough, despite my abundant wit and charm, I don't always get what I want (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ---Well, then let's initiate it! Winged Blades Godric  16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

For notification, the RfC referrer discussion was closed by one editor, which I accepted. Pinging Cyberpower678 also for the update. --George Ho (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that’s one less thing to worry about.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 20:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway
Please clarify why you think there has been a copyright violation.Tomintoul (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ---See this report. Winged Blades Godric 09:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ....aaaaand, what's that then? &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  12:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There has been no copyright infringement. Most of the material is covered under the 'Open Government Licence'. Please refer to the notes on the relevant document which states: You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.Tomintoul (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping --our on-wiki copy-vio experts. Winged Blades Godric 09:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have reworded the section not covered by the open government licence (Design competition). Please re-run your copy vio check and remove the tag. Thank you. Tomintoul (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ping The page has now been prematurely deleted by RHaworth. Please help me unpick this mess!Tomintoul (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The source document is marked on the final page as being released under the Open Government license, which is a compatible license. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've restored the article and added the attribution. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. This can be done by adding the following immediately after your citation: "UKOpenGovernmentLicence.svg This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. © Crown copyright.". Content from https://competitions.malcolmreading.co.uk/cambridgeoxfordconnection/ was copyvio, but was removed shortly after the article was nominated for deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your help.Tomintoul (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like all is good now :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ---Thanks for taking the time to help out! Winged Blades Godric 04:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit at the Dalai Lama
Are you on-line at this time? The edit on the Dalai Lama page which you edited was identified by me as a copy after it was discovered in the Kundun article at Wikipedia and split and moved to the Dalai Lama page. This was marked in the details of the comment field of the edit history of the Dalai Lama page which you may verify. It stated: "...split and move of fully developed material at Kundun article". The material is valid and fully researched and documented. If you like, I can further mark this on the talk page for further reference. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking.Wait Winged Blades Godric 04:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What happened to Help talk:IPA?
What happened to Help talk:IPA? Are you still going to move the pages? If you don't have time to do it yourself and you're still of the opinion that the pages should be moved, I suggest you ask your fellow page movers and administrators to perform the move on your behalf. Nardog (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ---I could be manually moving the pages & talk-pages & all sub-pages(using the PM right) bu it's plainly tedious.Will be soon asking at the BOT-Req. board for anyone to help out. Winged Blades Godric 04:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ---See this request thread. Winged Blades Godric 05:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs
Please review WP:NOQUORUM before relisting further AfDs. This is in relation to Articles for deletion/Pontiac Land Group. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --I prefer to relist all AfDs with zero comments (irrespective of their notability et al) to undergo at least one relist.Yeah, basically they could be equivalently treated as PROD-s and subject to soft-deletion but still.....Anyway, your advice is earnestly appreciated.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that some have differing opinions on this, but NOQUORUM was recently updated to require closers to treat AfDs with no comments supporting an outcome other than deletion as an expired PROD. This followed a large-scale community RfC. If you disagree with the practice, you're welcome to avoid processing these particular AfDs and focus on those that don't fall under the guideline, but it does create substantially more work for closers in the future when these aren't handled according to NOQUORUM. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Well, I didn't know that this was the resultant of an RFC! Since, it is, I will leave these AfDs. For, we can't process deletions! But I am certainly sure I have seen many relisted AFD's by experienced admins with one/two delete !votes and many re-listings of AfDs with no comments.Thanks for the head's up though! Winged Blades Godric 18:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct. This is fairly recent (spring 2017), and many experienced editors (admins and non-admins alike) either are unaware of the change or have ignored it in practice. After noticing that issue, I'm trying to go through recently relisted AfDs and touch base with those who are not following the new guideline through ignorance, habit, or some combination of the two. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Just as a further clarification and to increase my Wiki-knowledge-base, would a soft-deletion be appropriate in this case instead of the relist? This's an example of a generalised relist-action that cropped up quickly! Nothing to do with . And, can you please link to the RFC?Cheers:)And thanks for your efforts! Winged Blades Godric 18:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would have been a situation where the AfD should be treated as a PROD. I do want to be clear that "treated as a PROD" and "soft delete" are not fully synonymous; treating a nomination as a PROD involves double-checking it hasn't received a PROD before (in which case it cannot be soft-deleted) and ensuring the nomination is clearly based in policy (if not, then it should be relisted or the potential closer should comment in support of an alternative outcome). There's some checking involved before we default to soft delete. (I've already touched base with SoWhy, as an aside.) The RfC can be found here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 03:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

AN/I RfC
Hi. Why did you close a bunch of the sections of the RfC about reforming AN/I after only one day of discussion? I know there's no set period of time for RfCs to run, but one day seems a bit foreshortened to me. Sure, I'm pleased that they were closed in favor of the option I !voted for, but it doesn't seem to me that one day is a sufficient time to determine a consensus.

I'm not going to do anything about this, such as ask for a re-opening on a noticeboard or anything like that. I just thought I'd bring it to your attention so you could think about it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Hi, BMK, many thanks for bringing in the concerns.I re-reviewed my closures of the specific sections and I am unable to but fore-see the same future. Though crystal-balls are not allowed! And some proposals like the one for clerks, word-limit could be dealt as snow calls.Also, I don't particularly like the idea of keeping proposals, whose writing is already engraved on the wall, open and being subject to a pile-on in either way. Winged Blades Godric 04:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for considering my concerns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , FYI. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  13:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've undone all your closures, which were totally inappropriate. WP:Ignore all rules is indeed a pillar of Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you like"—invoking IAR should be a last resort, not a first. Invoking IAR to try to unilaterally close down a widely-advertised discussion between some of Wikipedia's most experienced editors is rarely if ever going to be appropriate. &#8209; Iridescent 13:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Firstly, that was not IAR.IAR doesn't include snow-closes.We have a definite policy WP:SNOW for the purpose and the purview of IAR includes those edits/behaviors which explicitly violates some WP policy et al.Sans the hellish exaggeration, it initially looked rational to me.But surely, I was wrong .And, I would surely keep a keen eye on the future of the thread.Also, obviously this was too early.So, revert? Winged Blades Godric 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Um - you may want to actually read essays before you cite then. WP:SNOW is just a personal essay giving the thoughts as to circumstances in which the author feels invoking IAR can potentially be appropriate. Of which this was patently not one. &#8209; Iridescent 21:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback
18:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk: John Fleming (American politician)
Hi, I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia editing and am unfamiliar with archiving. Another editor recently archived the original Talk:John Fleming (American politician). That seems weird to me, because the talk includes, among others, an active RfC decided less than three months ago. (You're the admin who reviewed the RfC.) There's been an intermediate edit, so I can't simply undo and I'm not sure what else to do. I also don't know if something like this falls into a vandalism category or just a lack of Wikipedia knowledge (on their part or mine), so I'd appreciate it if you could both cast an eye on the specific move and point me in the right direction for more info in general. Many thanks! Shelfpea (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the archiving looks prim. OK to me.But,, please immediately put the archive box on the talk-page that will lead people to the prev. archives from the current talk. Winged Blades Godric  17:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Winged Blades of Godric, thanks for the tip on the archive box. I wasn't sure of the correct mechanism for directing to the archived page. I have installed the archive box and it is working well. The RfC closed in May. I copied and pasted the recent Talk comments on the active Talk page. Again, thanks for the heads up and assistance. Unfairnessdoctrine (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OTRS
If you'd like any help with OTRS, feel free to let me know. In particular, you can check out otrswiki:Training for some methods to seek assistance either generally to get you started or with a specific ticket. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Closure at Mount Athos
Thanks for you closure note, but I'm afraid it won't be quite clear what the "proposed changes" and what the "status quo" is. The flag has been in the article since December 2014, because at that time it was edit-warred into it, by the same editor who has been defending it now, against the same objections already back then. The dispute merely lay dormant but has remained essentially the same ever since then. Which now is the stable status quo and which is the proposed change? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Regrets for the confusion.My closure meant:--There is no consensus for the proposed inclusion---in specific.But simultaneously there were not any strong grounds to exclude the flag either.Now, that the onus of inclusion is on the editor proposing it and the dispute regarding the topic has been long-standing,(even prior to your linked diffs) the status quo clause means that the flag stays out unless and until a newer RFC on the topic over-rules this consensus.Thanks! Hope this clears up the fog!. Winged Blades Godric 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed. Could I ask you to add that clarification to the RfC too? I sense that there might be unnecessary further conflict otherwise, if I were to go ahead and implement it like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --✅.Cheers:) Winged Blades Godric

Dear Winged Blades of Godric, you have my gratitude for taking the time in closing the RfC properly, as well as for acknowledging that there no consensus for the proposed inclusion, and that there were not any strong grounds to exclude the flag from the infobox. Although this is obvious, it is important for me and I appreciate this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Haldighati
First of all, the government of Rajashtan states the Battle of Haldighati was won by Maharana Pratap right now but my edits have nothing to do with the Rajashtan government. My edits sate that the Battle of Haldighati was indecisive NOT won by Maharana. The information that I am putting is what the rest of India believes and if you look it up on ther places the outcome will always be indecisive. And please tell me where it says that Maharana Pratap only conquered the western parts of his territories cause it never states that on any site or textbook. Thanks. TheNewSMG (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC) TheNewSMG (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --You seem to have a fundamental mis-understanding about how WP operates.We don't give a damn bother about what the people of India believes.reliable sources and only reliable sources dictate our content.And you are not the representative of people of India.Also, kindly read the sources which are linked to in superscripted numbers after a particular sentence/phrase. Winged Blades Godric 17:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

How is THIS not a reliable source? http://www.chittorgarh.com/maharana-pratap.asp I know how wikipedia works and YOU are not understanding what I am doing. Why are you getting angry over this? Your editing seems like you are mad or frustrated. TheNewSMG (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC) TheNewSMG (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I will only give up on my claim if someone clearly explains what is wrong with contributions to the article. TheNewSMG (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

--Well, that will not be just my failure to understand your actions but K Bear's and Utcursh's inability too!!And things become bleak when one finds the entire community against a particular set of edits.As to why it is not a RS,Capply C Fred's test.And if you can't maintain a civil tone, you are not welcome here. Winged Blades Godric 03:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will stop changing the outcome of Haldighati war if you guys cannot accept the sources I have found. Good day:) TheNewSMG (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Request on 21:04:04, 14 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Sfmodjtabai
I have resubmitted the article. please edit and let me know what needs to happen now. Thank you!

Sfmodjtabai (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see no re-sumbission and no signs of minimal editing. Winged Blades Godric 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ryan Doolittle
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryan Doolittle. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks!Will be commenting shortly. Winged Blades Godric 07:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)