User talk:Godsy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user uses the name Godsy on IRC.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 341: Line 341:


As required, I'm advising you that I've started a thread at ANi concerning your behavior. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
As required, I'm advising you that I've started a thread at ANi concerning your behavior. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for [[WP:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. </div><!-- Template:uw-block -->

This relates to your persistent following of Legacypac; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=783144361 further explanation]. Please remember that doing more of this will result in blocks of increasing length. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 11:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:29, 31 May 2017

this page was last altered by Nyttend (talk • contrib) on 05/31/2017

List of Star Wars characters

Hey there, I was recently updating redirects to this article to specific anchors, since every entry in the list has one. I see though that you are doing the opposite LOL, and redirecting to sections. I seem to remember that the anchors were added sometime in 2016 so perhaps you didn't realize they were there, or perhaps you have a specific reason why you prefer redirecting to sections? In any case, I figured we should discuss our thinking on the topic so that we're not going around in circles! I'll watch this talk page for your response, thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TAnthony: I did notice that you had been editing List of Star Wars characters and things "around" it, but I didn't notice that we'd been working against one another. I weighed the pros and cons of targeting them to anchors or sections, and sections came out slightly ahead, mainly for three reasons. Firstly, when an entry at the list is particularly large, part of it is visually cut off when being directed there from an {{r to anchor}} due to the name being centered (if that makes sense; e.g. if Ponda Baba targeted the anchor for that entry). The second was if the name is changed, e.g. as Lieutenant Connix was just changed to Kaydel Ko Connix, they still work (at least sometimes; especially for ones with unchanged surnames). Lastly, I also took a quick sampling of other lists, and it seems that targeting to sections is more common than anchors. However, I'm okay with targeting them to the anchors as well, if you think it's preferable. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was redirecting to sections in this article until recently as well, so I'm fine with that for the reasons you give. I just did a little research and the anchors were only added to the list in August. I think the bigger problem is that there are so many missing or broken anchors in redirects to this article, mostly because of Legends and non-notable characters which were at some point removed. I also imagine there are many redirects best pointed to the source work (like a Legends novel) rather than one of the character lists. But fixing that is an ongoing task! Thanks for the chat.— TAnthonyTalk 15:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TAnthony: Once all the redirects with an entry at the list are targeted to the appropriate section and categorized, I plan to compile a list of characters that redirect there but don't have a mention/entry. I'll probably post that list at Talk:List of Star Wars characters, and I'll ping you as well. I've only gotten through up to List of Star Wars characters#D so far, so it may be quite a while. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RfA

wp:nothere

Don't you think these 10 questions are good for the candidates' minds? 95.49.106.14 (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think they are vandalism.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To rob Peter to pay Paul

See also: User talk:Corinne/Archive 25 § To rob Peter to pay Paul

Hello, Godsy – I am flattered that an experienced editor such as yourself would ask me to copy-edit an article you had written. As you'll see, I've made a few small edits. I capitalized "Middle Ages" since it is capitalized in the Middle Ages article (and I've only ever seen it capitalized). I changed "being gained" to "accruing"; I generally try to avoid the use of "being". If you really prefer "being gained", feel free to put it back in. I have a few questions for you, just some things to think about, nothing major:

1) The first sentence of the second paragraph is as follows:

  • The legend behind this phrase is that it alludes to an event in mid-16th century England in which the abbey church of Saint Peter, Westminster was deemed a cathedral by letters patent; but ten years later it was absorbed into the diocese of London when the diocese of Westminster was dissolved, and a few years after that many of its assets were annexed for repairs to Saint Paul's Cathedral.

I'm wondering whether you need both "the legend behind this phrase is" and "it alludes to". Does the existence of the allusion constitute a legend in itself? I know this is the kind of thing that is pretty much "lost in the mists of time", but did ideas about the origin of the phrase really develop into a legend? If so, that's fine, but in that case, perhaps the first part of this sentence could be made slightly more concise, something like this:

  • Legend has it that the phrase alludes to an event...

If not, then perhaps the mention of a legend could be dispensed with, and the sentence could start with something like this:

  • In England, it is commonly thought that the phrase alludes to an event...

I think either way would work. What do you think?

2) In this sentence is the following phrase:

  • many of its assets were annexed for repairs...

I looked up the verb "annex" in Merriam-Webster on-line, here, and, sure enough, it is Definition 5, which, I believe, is a less common meaning than the others. I wonder if you think the use of "annexed" here is sufficiently common that most of our readers will grasp the meaning without resorting to a dictionary. I thought of another verb that might work here: appropriated, which, at least in the U.S., is more common. On the other hand, maybe "annexed" is slightly more correct than "appropriated". I'll leave it up to you.

3) In the middle of the last paragraph is the following sentence:

  • The two names were typical in expressions due to the alliteration they form.

I'm wondering why the verb in this sentence is in past tense ("were"). I know it may have been in past tense in the source, but the past tense makes it sound as if it is no longer typical in expressions; also, because of intervening material, it is not completely clear whether you mean that the two names were typical in expressions when Middle English was spoken (and, if so, only a scholar would know when that was). If you really mean this sentence to refer to a time in the past, I would indicate that time somehow. If you think the source would support the sentence referring to the past and the present, you could change the tense to present perfect tense: "The two names have been typical in expressions...."

4) My fourth question has to do with the "See also" section at the end of the article. I see "Ponzi scheme", which is linked.

Is the essential meaning of the expression "To rob Peter to pay Paul" really the same as what happens in a Ponzi scheme, or is it only similar? If it is only similar, I wonder if it would be a good idea to leave out the definition you put there. I may be wrong, but I think it throws the reader into an oblique direction away from the essential meaning of the expression. I thought the expression "To rob Peter to pay Paul" had more to do with personal or family, or municipal, finances, and perhaps with relationships between individuals, than with business ethics. Finally, I wonder if you could find examples of the use of the expression in literature, theater, and film. Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne:
1) I'll go with "Legend has it that the phrase alludes to an event" as more concise. Wordsworth describes it as a fable, I took the liberty of changing that to legend.
2) Two of the sources use "appropriated", though I think one of them is in the public domain, I always try to put things in my own words to be safe. Is there something besides "appropriated" that you think is better than "annexed"?
3) Yes, it is my intention to indicate a time in the past (basically when this was coined, which is believed to be in the middle ages, but exactly when is uncertain). In the context of that paragraph the use of them today is irrelevant.
4) Ponzi's Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend shows up pretty early when searching for "to rob Peter to pay Paul" in in Google Books. That's probably what led my mind down that path, but that book only uses it offhand once. I'll remove that section. I'll look into notable examples of use in media.
0) Thanks for the in-depth review. I always find a second set of eyes to be helpful, especially when they are yours. My door is always open should you need assistance with anything.
— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2)   took over
made use of
expropriated
usurped
3) I understand that because you intend the sentence to refer to a time when Middle English was spoken, you don't want to add a time phrase, but the sentence makes it seem as if the use of the two names together is only because of alliteration when, I believe, judging from the previous discussions, it was also because of theological and historical reasons. Would you consider a rewording of the sentence to something like this:
  • One reason for the frequent use of the two names in expressions is the alliteration they form.
0) Thank you! I will definitely keep that in mind.
 – Corinne (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinne:
2) I'll go with "expropriated".
3) Sure, "One reason for the frequent use of the two names in expressions is the alliteration they form.", sounds good.
0) Thanks again,
— Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever find me to be nitpicking, please let me know. I tend to focus on details, perhaps a bit too much.  – Corinne (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps illustrating what I just wrote, I saw your edit summary regarding removing the comma after i.e., I did a little searching and found (somewhere) a statement saying style guides disagree about the use of a comma after i.e. and e.g., but I also found this from the Chicago Manual of Style. It is a response to a question about the use of a semi-colon (or not) before i.e. or e.g., but the answer and the example sentences clearly show a comma after i.e. and e.g. Just sharing what I found; no need to change your edit.  – Corinne (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fatunder/sandbox

Very good Godsy Is there a way you can review listing I want to publish Added material and external references Fatunder is wiki name Fatunder (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fatunder: I believe you are here because I patrolled your draft about John K. Grande. I did so because pages nominated for deletion, which that draft is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fatunder/sandbox, should be marked as patrolled so other editors don't waste their time making sure the page is appropriate. I could review the draft, however, four other users have already done so and left comments. If you fix the issues they have already identified, I'd be happy to wikify the page for you. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Further information: User talk:DASL51984 § Your signature

Thanks for the notice! Fixed. DASL51984 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for To rob Peter to pay Paul

On 2 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article To rob Peter to pay Paul, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "to rob Peter to pay Paul" means to eliminate one debt by incurring another? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/To rob Peter to pay Paul. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, To rob Peter to pay Paul), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedies

Thanks for clearing up after me, I don't always remember to close ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Glad to and no worries. Thanks for speedily deleting those pages. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD → AfD

I've seen you procedurally open a couple AfD's from MfD now, and I've got an idea that I think would be easier and "cleaner". What if, instead of closing and reopening the discussion, it's moved from eg Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bossam to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bossam. The MfD link would be preserved as a redirect, and the only other clean-up would be moving the transclusion and correcting the tag. That way, the original nominator and subsequent comments are preserved. I'd like to see what you'd think. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: I like the idea. It would be less work, cleaner, and preserve existing discussion. A downside of the current system is that it can affect the afd stats of the procedural closer, which moving would not. The mover would still need to ping the nominator and leave a comment explaining their action. That aside, the downside of the moving method is that it would eliminate the consistency of performing a procedural close at each venue. A discussion page cannot be moved from one venue to another if both venues do not host individual discussions on their own subpages. Right now the closing and opening instructions are followed at each venue, and as they are already necessary, it amounts to less instruction. The current guideline is at Wikipedia:Procedural close. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd only work between MfD and AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dab redirect

Hi! I'm here because of this edit. In this case, where there is no dab page any longer, it would be best to mark the redirect with "(disambiguation)" in its title for speedy deletion (G6). It's supposed to redirect only to a dab page. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorthian: Thanks for the note. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Peter Van Hoesen!

The link you made to James sullivan and Peter Van Hoesen is not correct! Wrong century and wrong person! :) --Aporter90 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aporter90: I added a hatnote to the Peter Van Hoesen article. Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. One such use (and how it is being used in this case) is when two subjects could reasonably exist at the same title, but one resides there (determined by which is the primary topic). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that out after I made my comment! I went back and actually LOOKED at it. You know what they say about people asuming things ;) teaches me to double look at things before I comment! --Aporter90 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User talk:Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
See also: User talk:Beyond My Ken#RfC at Template talk:Nazism sidebar
I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.
Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:New Jersey Folklore Society

My dear Godsy, can you do me a huge favor? You've helped me and my students out so much already, so I'm hesitant to call on you--but you seem to know what's going on and you're helpful. Please have a look at the article and leave a few comments on the talk page, a review of sorts, to point Michaelgav09 toward article improvement (and possibly DYK...or at least staving off deletion!). Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Aaij: Sure, no problem; I have just a quick moment to write this message right now, but I'll be able to do so this evening. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is great. Thank you so much. Dr Aaij (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Aaij and Michaelgav09:  Done. It can be viewed at Talk:New Jersey Folklore Society#Review 2. I hope it is not too technical. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nazism sidebar

Because of a multiplicity of new options, I've withdrawn the RfC you participated in and replaced it with this one Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Not a random act, the review you did, since I asked you for one--but it certainly was kind, and you went beyond the call of duty. Thank you. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

See also: User talk:Temp87 § Welcome!

Thank you! --Temp87 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Offline

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Further discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Linking to details regarding the offline Medical Wikipedia app.

There was consensus to add the template to the external links section similar to the "commons" template. It was added to article on neglected tropical diseases specifically those that affect people with poor internet access the most. Thus I have restored it. Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Here is the significant support to keep the sidebar [1] as well as use it as it has been used. You weighed in on that conversation... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: You mistake consensus to "not delete the template" for consensus to "use it as [you like]". And though I removed the template from the over twenty articles you just boldly added it to, and apprised you that such changes were a large number of similar edits that are controversial or disputed, you restored them anyhow. To partially quote a participant from the discussion you linked, "I've noticed that WP:MED seems to think it owns these articles (this is not the first time they've tried something not-only-out-of-the-box but also not in-keeping with general Wikipedia practices)--it does not." Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine members resisted appropriately consulting the community about a similar template, fighting tooth and nail to keep it in articles, despite lacking consensus to use it in the mainspace (even after explicitly being told consensus was needed here). I plan to start a discussion regarding the template at the village pump this evening (unless one has already began there). Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me and the rest of the crew at WPMED when you have it started. We are already discussing the concerns here.
Many of use at WPMED view "access to Wikipedia content" as one of our key goals. This is likely partly because we realize that health outcomes vary in different regions of the world in part because of poor access to quality health care information for many. In fact ensuring such access is part of the Sustainable Development Goals
We discuss medicine / health care related issues at WT:MED. If the wider community is interested in such discussions they should watch list the page and join them. Seeing as I have worked extensively on every article that the link was added to I hardly see WP:FAITACCOMPLI as applying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When outside of the normal guidelines regarding external links and/or the manual of style concerning links, the wider community should not be expected to watchlist the page, rather WP:MED should be expected to consult them (especially when faced with controversy). Just because you've extensively edited such articles doesn't mean you own them. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there is no WP:OWN. However there is consensus for the templates inclusion. Wikipedia is a "do-ocracy". Not everything that is done needs your stamp of approval. Some details of style are left to those who write the articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the wider community should not be expected to watchlist the page...the medical editing community should be appraised of all/anything that is important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what this boils down to is: you believe there "is consensus for the templates inclusion", and I do not. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likely. If you wish to clarify this feel free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions

Hi Godsy, something in the section I reverted here was breaking the page when the main MFD page was being edited. Think it is an unmatched table or div tag, but I'm not seeing it right now. Feel free to revisit if you want. — xaosflux Talk 01:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: The only thing I can think of is it may have been the {{mfd top}} template being substituted while {{mfd bottom}} was not, [tested in userspace; not that]. I've re-implemented some of the alterations, without changing those parts, so nothing should break this time (unless it was the {{pagelinks}} template doing the breaking, which I doubt). Warmest Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not breaking the main mfd page now, thanks! — xaosflux Talk 03:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA?

Hi. It's been some months since your RfA narrowly failed to pass. I wonder if you'd consider a new one, now or in the next few months? I'm interested in nominating good candidates.

If you're even possibly interested, my follow-up question will be... what have you done to address some of the concerns raised at your last RfA?

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so until at least a year has passed since the first one. I occasionally re-read parts of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy to keep some of the concerns fresh in my mind, so I should have a good answer to that question when the time comes. Thanks for stopping by. Warmest Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admirable. If you'd like, please drop me a line long before you're ready, because I'd be honoured to nominate you, especially if you're doing as you say here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you know anyone else who might be close to or ready, ask them to get in touch with me or just name them on my user talk, if you or they think some help from me might get them over the line. Obviously, I'd recuse from involving myself as a Crat in any subsequent RfA. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I extend the same to any talk-page stalkers, too, including for themselves! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: Paine Ellsworth came to mind when you asked, but I didn't want to put them on the spot. However, it seems they may be open to the idea. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for thinking about me, Godsy! I did say "almost". Sorry to see my rationale did not move you to support. Yours is quite the meaningful !vote in any discussion, which almost made me go "neutral"; however, I do think this mop candy is a better choice than most, even better than a tiny handful of existant admins.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, if you're close to or ready to go for RfA and are interested in a nomination from me, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am honored that you have faith in me, Dweller! To be honest, I've realized that I don't really need the tools to do what I like to do here. On those rare occasions when having the tools would be a bit more convenient, I'm always able to find an admin to help me. And frankly, though I'd very much like to be an admin, the process would have to change significantly before I would go a second round. Thank you beyond words for considering me!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mind control abilities are failing badly today. See above, below and on Gamaliel's user talk. <sigh> OK, but if you change your mind or know someone who might be a good candidate, drop me a line pls --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. Not sure how I missed this, even though I recently edited on this page. But, in regards to Paine Ellsworth's comment above, gotta say, after my own RFA which I decided to withdraw after it not being active for even a day, I realized that except for the ability to delete and restore pages, I can really do everything I want to do in Wikipedia without the need for the administrative toolset. And those RFAs ... one wrong step, and they can turn into a nightmare. I'm honestly not sure at this time if I ever want to go through that again. I'd rather keep being a productive editor than feel the need to take a break after a downward spiraling RFA. But, either way ... Godsy, if you ran again, I'd support you ... rather than going back-and-forth between neutral and support about 10 times. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Thanks Steel. You and Paine were the two who came to mind when Dweller asked me if I knew anyone who would make a good administrator. The main reason I would run again is for the same part of the toolset you mention (especially being able to move pages more simply and cleanly by deleting a blocking redirect per G6 then moving the page leaving a redirect, as opposed to using round-robin three page moves without leaving a redirect.) Just being able to view deleted pages would also be convenient. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing

If I was trying to persuade you over the line from neutral to support, what would be the right thing to say?

Got it in mind?

OK, I've said it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost the heart to oppose bar a good reason to do so after going through an RfA myself, otherwise I would be in that column. If one does enough of anything, some of it will be wrong. This candidate has not done enough of anything for anyone to find much wrong with it. We do not just need an increase in the number of administrators, we need active administrators. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he does 2 or 3 useful, clueful admin actions a week, and doesn't stomp around upsetting people, is that not a net positive? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor becomes particularly skilled in an area or areas (e.g. participation at a deletion venue or venues, vandalism reversion and reporting, patrolling new pages, etc.), and giving them the mop will improve their work there, we should give it to them, provided their behavior in other areas and in general is reasonable. I just don't think that the candidate has risen to that level yet. I'm afraid that the most I can offer is to refrain from moving to the oppose column, which I had considered. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing very well today, am I Gamaliel? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm almost persuaded to go RfA-2 just to give you a much-deserved lift, Dweller! (And again, I said "almost" ;>). When situations like this seem bleak, I remind myself of what it takes to hit the "magic 300" in baseball: all you have to do is miss the ball 7 of 10 times. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace links to "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:..." with "Wikipedia:..."

Per your participation in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 20#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars, you may be interested in a related request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Replace links to redirects with "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:" in their titles. Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

It is nice (for a change) to have some positive feedback. I thank you (too). Too often, I find there are partisan views on how to advance an issue which often results in negative feedback that is not collegiate nor does it recognise "strength of arguement" or logic. Much appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: No problem, it seemed that you put a lot of thought into your comment. I enjoy seeing fresh blood at redirects for discussion, and if you find participating there enjoyable, I hope to see you around more often as the venue can always use more participation. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I see things within my expertise and when I think I can add to the discussion, I will add my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may see that I have created a page, Edged and bladed weapons, per previous discussion and have asked for redirects, thinking WP:bold was the way to go given that the discussion appears to have stagnated. I am waiting for a response to have the redirects created ATM.[2] On another note, I see a "tag" on your page re: third opinion. I value a "third opinion" and would like both to have such a tag added to my page and to participate in such processes. I believe that third opinions are a valuable tool. I have looked at your user page to try to copy this but I can't see how to do it. Could you pls add this to my user page. Any links appropriate and advice would be appreciated. TIA Cinderella157 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: I'm preoccupied right now due to the holiday, but I'll happily take a in-depth look at it Monday Tuesday. Best Regards & Happy Easter, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: After reading through it several times and glancing at the sources: the main thing that I think would improve the article is moving it to edge weapon or edged weapon. Regardless if such weapons are a blade (e.g. a sword) or a point weapon (e.g. a spear or even a hook) they have a sharp edge. The melee weapons this discludes is true point weapons (e.g. like some sais) and bashing weapons (e.g. staves and bats). It would include some arrows. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no great attachment to where this goes, except that it should probably go somewhere. Incidentally, some daggers and bayonets are not edged either. Personally, I don't believe that arrows or spears fall into the classification of edged weapons, even if they may have a sharpened edge, they are ostensibly point weapons and not slashing or hacking weapons which rely on their edge or blade for effect. The melee weapons article adopts this definition even if it is not specifically referenced. I did searches for a definition and I don't have ready library access - so hence, the best definition available. I would not oppose a renaming though I do think that there should be a redirect from "blade weapon" as per redirects page. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: Pointed bayonets slipped my mind (particularly those on some models of the mosin nagant). Perhaps sharp weapon would be a good title, especially if a source defining the term could be found; the antonym being blunt weapon. I don't think many weapons would fall into both categories. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other options are better. The article makes this point about such bayonets etc. See close of redirects discussion. I am travelling to a major centre over the next week and will see if I can get to a library. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for When in Rome, do as the Romans do

On 20 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article When in Rome, do as the Romans do, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" means that it is advisable to follow the conventions of the area in which you are residing or visiting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/When in Rome, do as the Romans do. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, When in Rome, do as the Romans do), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Renaming club logos

Hi. Thank you for taking the time to rename the club logos I had proposed under the Category:Logos of football clubs in Albania. What I had requested initially was for the team name to be followed by the word "club logo" in lowercase. Currently the name is followed by the words "Club Logo" which has an uppercase for each word. Would it be possible to change the names to lowercase club logo? Kj1595 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj1595: It is possible. As a matter of principle, it is best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. However, you uploaded 68/71 of the files, so you could make the requests per WP:FNC#1 (i.e. "uploader request"). In my view, it seems unnecessary, as it would be a lot of work and create a lot of file redirects etc. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. Kj1595 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj1595: I noticed that you re-requested the images be renamed. The requests should be made explicitly per WP:FNC#1 where it is applicable; "Using the more standard lowercase characters for the words 'club logo'" is not a reason to rename the files and will likely be declined (especially because WP:FMNN exists). Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WeRe Bank

Hi. Didn't know about that RfC. Is what I did now the correct action? Onel5969 TT me 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Hello. Boiling down WP:UP/RFC2016 to the applicable part in this case: If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace. The details (who moves what back where and when) should be discussed by the community. Unfortunately, that discussion hasn't taken place. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley B. Mulaik listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stanley B. Mulaik. Since you had some involvement with the Stanley B. Mulaik redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Narky Blert (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikispecies redirect

Template:Wikispecies redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Narky Blert (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of contribution histories

I continue to see your editing random pages I just edited that you have no prior history with. Kindly stop using my edit list as a pool of pages to work on. Your behavior is stalking, and I've reminded you about this before. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate use of others editing history includes but is not limited to fixing unambiguous errors and correcting related problems across multiple articles. I've done nothing outside of those things. That aside, many of the pages we've both edited recently have not been reached through your contribution history (e.g. pages at and related to miscellany for deletion). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dress

I have noticed you do not like my visualization of the dress. It was not my intention to post "fanfare", the Wikipe-tan base image was simply the first "dress-SVG" image I came across. I am willing to redo the image but I am not quite sure what the specific problem is. Would another not-Wikipe-tan figure be ok? Should I crop of the head? --Jahobr (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahobr: I think it would be alright with the head, hair, and Wikipedia puzzle piece chest emblem removed. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions from userspace

Hi, there, Godsy. As per my ANI here, which was resolved quite appropriately I think by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง with a warning and a recommendation, I will not be participating in XfD discussions until I have more experience. However, I was troubled by some of the behaviour of user Legacypac, in nominating CSD candidates but also apparently submitting Draftspace articles to AfD in order to have them rejected and promote more rapid deletion, as in these diffs: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&diff=782622707&oldid=782622643> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vulcan1812/Bagley,_Alabama&action=history> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&curid=26467366&diff=782648198&oldid=782647878>. Could you take a look at that whole situation? It seems to me that Legacypac, DGG, and Nyttend have been throwing stones in spite of their own glass houses. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac also made the bizarre argument, unsupported as far as I can tell, that an article could be WP:SPAM because of the username of the editor. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qcpu/Quezon_City_Polytechnic_University&diff=prev&oldid=782652783>, and previously <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qcpu/Quezon_City_Polytechnic_University&diff=prev&oldid=782643368>. They seem to be making up their own rules, TBH, but then they refers to the people doing so as "we" q.v. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Annejacqueline/Yasmine_modestine&curid=54155836&diff=782640813&oldid=782635737> as if they were product of a consensus or general practice, even though, in this case, WP:YAMB isn't even a policy. I'm going to let this go, for my own mental health if nothing else, but can't you see that something is amiss? Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I am a bit short on time right now due to the holiday weekend, but I should be able to respond and offer you some advice later this evening. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I am not going to comment regarding other users. It is best to stick to what is explicitly demonstrable (i.e. the facts) by providing diffs and commenting on them instead of characterizing contributors. I thought your comments at miscellany for deletion regarding the "Fails WP:GNG without sig..." nominations all by the same user were good. I made a similar comment myself at WT:MFD. WP:NMFD is a good way to reference Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 58#RfC: Does WP:N apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace.3F. Other comments you have made there have been overzealous. Miscellany for deletion is the appropriate place to seek the deletion of drafts where many factors are considered. It isn't cut and dry, e.g. there is precedent to delete drafts that have been unsuccessfully submitted to articles for creation several times. In regard to YAMB, I'd suggest reading this discussion. In regard to the username of an editor being similar to content they are editing or creating see WP:NOTWEBHOST / WP:FAKEARTICLE (if they are housing it in their userspace) and WP:NOTPROMOTION (in general). That aside, caution is always due when removing speedy deletion tags, starting deletion reviews, and when attempting to be humorous. Feel free to bring any questions you have here, but keep my second sentence in mind. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Newimpartial AN/I

An issue you have become involved with is being discussed at ANi. [3] Normally I'd suggest you comment but in this case I suggest you stay out of it, but I'm doing my duty of informing you. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Required ANi Notice

As required, I'm advising you that I've started a thread at ANi concerning your behavior. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This relates to your persistent following of Legacypac; see further explanation. Please remember that doing more of this will result in blocks of increasing length. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Godsy&oldid=783144453"