This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Hello! Your submission of Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bruin2 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Godsy! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  21:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Much appreciated. Best regards, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleasure! Paine  

On 21 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that CR-39, used in the manufacture of plastic eyeglass lenses, was one of 200 polymers invented by Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Columbia-Southern Chemical Corporation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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) 00:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do realize there was already a link to it, right? On the line,"Donald Drumpf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)", the XfD button links to the RfD. pbp 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I figured making it a bit more pronounced wasn't a bad idea, it may have helped TheFancyFedoraWielder if it had been there before, and prevented future similar cases of confusion.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afro engineering, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not ever make an intentional link to a disambiguation page, as you did here. This creates false positives and disrupts the work of disambiguators. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BD2412: My apologies, I should have piped it as you did in your correction. I'm not in the habit of linking to disambiguation pages as it shouldn't be done in article prose where I edit more often. It seemed logical at the time when I noticed tour was the page name. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is an exception to the rule of otherwise making direct links on disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 20:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

discussions with a user about moving content from a userspace other than your own to the mainspace

St. John's Fire District and other moves[edit] The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. This move of a draft back to userspace was inappropriate [1] Getting references for this non-controversial info on a public utility service is trivially easy. Per WP:STALEDRAFT "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;". Since there is nothing controversial on the page your move back to draft is close to a delete and is in violation of [2]. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Legacypac: The page isn't suitable for the mainspace until it has those references, so your move there was inappropriate per the guideline you mentioned. WP:BURDEN (part of the WP:V policy which you also mention) applies to your move and not my reversion, because WP:V applies to additions in the mainspace.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] extended quote "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." And yes I object to you removing the whole darn article because you are too lazy to tag it for sources in totally non-controversial info. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] (edit conflict) @Legacypac: When the policy states "restore" it means if one adds content to an article (within the article namespace) and another removes it, the burden is on the one that adds it to provide a reliable source. You're are misusing and misinterpreting that policy. It's only applicable to your move because it placed content into the mainspace. My reversion of your move is actually enforcing "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" in a way, as you need to reference it before moving it back. Secondly, please refrain from making personal attacks (i.e. your last sentence in your most recent comment) on me or anyone else for that matter on my talk page.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] After you failed to have me sanctioned, you seem to have embarked on a mission to reverse a number of my moves to mainspace. That is disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] The moves are improper, and as such, their reversions are not inappropriate. I was very clear in my move summaries: "the article lacks references of any kind, failing part of the core content policies, and as such it fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the article namespace."—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Your hypocritical activity will be reviewed by Admins [3] Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Godsy Disruption & GAMING the SystemReply[reply] Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System Your gaming continues with moving a stub on a very notable novel not once but twice, conflicting me out as I was adding references. [4] See [[Claire of the Sea Light ]] for another example of your stupid behavior. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Legacypac: I follow the policies and guidelines and you have yet to provide any evidence that I've ever gamed the system. I am not and have not gamed the system. The references should be added before the page move, because until they are present in the article, the article is not suitable for the mainspace. Claire of the Sea Light is another example of you moving an unsuitable unreferenced page to the mainspace, hence leading someone to nominate it for deletion. That is a waste of the community's time that can be traced back to you. "for another example of your stupid behavior" any further comments you make here that don't strictly adhere to CIVILITY and NOPERSONALATTACKS will be promptly removed and remain unanswered.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Only allowing 28 minutes and 6 minutes for someone to respond to ref needed tags is way too short. These are award winning novels - how the heck are your actions improving the encyclopedia? There are hundreds of thousands of unreferenced articles in mainspace. If we start moving them all to draft space instead of adding references would hou support that? Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] "Only allowing 28 minutes and 6 minutes for someone to respond to ref needed tags is way too short. These are award winning novels - how the heck are your actions improving the encyclopedia?" - an irrelevant and already answered comment and question per my comment above. If you move that particular content (i.e. The Waiting Years) to the draft namespace, I would have no objections, especially as the user is blocked indefinitely.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Or maybe you could try adding the references you think it needs - per policy and best practice. There is no policy that supports your move back into an indef banned userspace and your actions are WP:NOTHERE. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Legacypac: WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:BRD, and "best practice" support my reversion of your move. I am under no obligation to reference the page, as I am not the one moving it into the mainspace where references are required (and also required for the move itself to take place).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] a list related to this matter User:Abigail48/Clive Matson/Clive Matson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Matson restored to userspace per User talk:Sarahj2107#Clive Matson/User talk:JohnCD#Clive Matson User:Adsbond/Rugby Welsh Rfc/Rugby Welsh Rfc restored per User talk:Mojo Hand#Rugby Welsh Rfc proposed deletion User:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong/Solitaire & Mahjong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire & Mahjong restored to Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong per User talk:Michig#Solitaire & Mahjong User:Trekie9001/Duplekita/Duplekita Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita restored to Draft:Duplekita per User talk:Ymblanter#Duplekita User:Jax 0677/As Cities Burn EP (2002) & User:Jax 0677/As Cities Burn EP (2003)/As Cities Burn EP (2002) & As Cities Burn EP (2003) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As Cities Burn EP (2002) (2nd nomination) restored per User talk:Malcolmxl5#As Cities Burn EP (2002) and As Cities Burn EP (2003) User:Aj2001/Der-shing Helmer/Der-shing Helmer content located at User:Aj2001/sandbox, User talk:Missvain#Der-shing Helmer User:APBAnimals/Unicity Productions/Unicity Productions User:Kerry's girls/Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline/Hack n' Smack Celebrity Golf Classic in Memory of Kerry Daveline User:Strangewiki/Play It Strange Trust/Play It Strange Trust These three were restored to userspace per Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Unicity Productions, Play It Strange Trust, and Hack n' Smack Celebrity... User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp/Chaz Knapp Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp (both were keep) then it was speedied; restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 March 31#User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp User:Abstractmindzent/Graffiki/Graffiki restored per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell/Richard d'Anjolell restored per User talk:Malcolmxl5#Richard d'Anjolell User:ARQLA/Regalia/Regalia (Condominium) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regalia (Condominium) considering taking it to DRV, User talk:Sandstein#Regalia (Condominium) Special:log/Godsy over 10 page moves reverted preemptively as they probably would have been deleted shortly as the content clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace as is required. 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. Reversion of moves[edit] The following discussion 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. You appear to have reversed 4 of my moves. I've warned you before to not stalk my edits but you persist. Reverse the moves or will seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Legacypac: Do what you feel is necessary. "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. ... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I stand by my move summaries. I've warned you about your conduct on my talk page before: any further threats such as "Reverse the moves or will seek sanctions against you" by you on my talk page will be reverted and will not receive a response.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[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. Assertion articles [moved from a userspace not your own] need sources[edit] The following discussion is closed. On a few occasions you have moved articles on notable topic from mainspace into userspace based on the current lack of sources even though the info is not remotely controversial. You only do this on pages I move as far as I can see. If you apply your same logic to 216,997 articles in Category:All_articles_lacking_sources and move them all into userspace you might find many users object to your actions. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Legacypac: Old drafting pages in the userspace of long inactive users [may be,] if suitable for mainspace, move[d] to mainspace. Unsourced articles don't meet the core content policies, so they are not "suitable", and don't meet the criteria that allows them to be moved from the user namespace of someone else. On a related note: Would you please move User:Legacypac/*********** to another title and request the resulting redirect be deleted per WP:CSD#G7? The current title is a personal attack against me and inappropriate per WP:POLEMIC. It may even qualify for WP:CSD#G10, but I refrained from applying the tag.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Editing other user's comments is a serious offense. Don't do it. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] I edited the section heading per WP:UP#OWN and the "section headings" bullet point of WP:TPOC, I didn't edit your comment.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Go read the WP:TPOC and stop changing the meaning of the section heading I started. It does not matter who's userspace is involved as no one owns their userspace or the stuff they drop there. You refuse to discuss, just bull headedly making moves into other users spaces. BRD includes the D - Discuss - but you don't discuss. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] The burden is on you to propose the moves in the proper forum, or more applicable to these cases, bring the content up to a suitable level after your moves have been reverted. You're the one seeking a change (i.e. a move) and being bold.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] What forum should a person propose the move of a stale draft at exactly? Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Legacypac: "or more applicable to these cases, bring the content up to a suitable level after your moves have been reverted [before potentially moving the page again]" I suppose the de facto place to propose a move from the userspace of another user would be the talk page of the content or the main talk page of the user (but that wouldn't garner enough or any attention). Nonetheless, I would have gladly discussed any of the reversions with you at either of those locations. By looking at Special:log/Legacypac, I'd give a very roughly estimate that at least 20 or more pages you have moved to the mainspace this year have been deleted there, and several others probably would have befallen same fate had they not been reverted preemptively. If a page is moved to the mainspace, then subsequently deleted, it shows it was not suitable for the mainspace. Taking all of that into account, I'd personally suggest you submit any content you think is suitable to AfC, as content isn't accepted there unless it is reasonably suitable for the mainspace.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed.

---

See also: User talk:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong

A tag has been placed on User:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contested.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed.

---

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Trekie9001/Duplekita. Since you had some involvement with the User:Trekie9001/Duplekita redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment, removal 1, restoration and unsigned, and removal 2 (both removals lack edit summaries)

Howdy. You shouldn't be restoring posts there, by banned editors :) GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: That's the second time that I noticed you had removed posts by a "166" IP editor from that thread. Perhaps I'm uninformed on the issue, but how do you know that is a blocked editor? My apologies if this comes off as a bit blunt. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The contrib history of WP:ANI, will show that several editors have removed posts from several 166xxx IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you've restored the banned editor's post. Very well, it's your responsibility now. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I quoted it, but yes, I suppose it is.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored the deleted page to User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell as you requested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per request. If you don't want it anymore, just let me know. Widr (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shortcut-related issues aside, I supported all aspects of the proposal (two with caveats).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I just added a comment thanking you at WP:RFD for clearing it up, but in adding that comment (and that is just adding the comment to thank you) it still trails in cyan and small. Maybe it is ust Twinkle don't understand the various nested tags you have in your sig. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Si Trew: Fixed again. I haven't altered my signature since August 2015. I think you accidently removed part of it due to the edit conflict. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably Twinkle then, not sorting out the various nested tags in your sigs. At each ocasion all I did was hit the reply button, I didn't go around doing fancy fonts or anything deliberately to try it. If the third time it happens, I let you know, but something is screwing up and it ain't thee and it ain't me. (I am typing blind, by the way, so please excuse my errors. I am not blind but expect to be fairly shortly, so I touchtype well and colours are a nuisance. WP:USABILITY I think. Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niteshift36 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. ((subst:if||| (({message))} ||subst=subst:)) To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

This whole thing has become much more adversarial than it should be. I've added your source to the article, as an actual inline source. I have not, however, changed the section titles. I think the most commonly used titles are the most appropriate and see no reason to change that. Your thoughts? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Niteshift36: I agree that it has become more adversarial than it should be, and I can live with that as a compromise. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An inquiry

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

User:Godsy/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Godsy/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Hello, Godsy. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Coffee. On a side note: Sorry about the slight misunderstanding we had when you were in the process of closing the discussion (If you don't remember: I reverted a couple of changes you made to pages related to this right before the discussion was closed as I did not realize you were closing the discussion). Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, no worries! I only used such strong language in my reverts since I was in full ENTJ mode while trying to go through the complicated process of implementing a policy. Definitely don't take that personally. :-) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

 – permalink

• Please revert my recent hasty move: category:1930s in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic back to category:1930s in the Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Altenmann: I completed your request. Should anything be done with the subcategories at this time?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Godsy: - You are right. I didn't notice this before. The subcategories must be consistent with the parent. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Category:20th-century establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

Category:1930s establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

Category:1931 establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

Category:1934 establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

Category:1920s establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

Category:1928 establishments in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

@Altenmann: At the time of all those were established, the name of the republic would have been "Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic" (per the lead of that article). That being said, perhaps your move should be un-reverted, as it was appropriate for consistency. Alteratively, all those category titles can be moved to shave the "h" off, or a discussion can be started about it at CFD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Altenmann: Category:1930s in the Kazakh Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (now a soft redirect) actually erroneously contained those subcategories. I've fixed the problems (one, two, and three), so the category redirect doesn't have the issue anymore, therefore it is reasonably fine where it is at this time (though the fix breaks the categories in another manner which I'll have to sort out a bit later). Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Altenmann: I reinstated the move that you requested be reversed and did some other small alterations. It all seems to be in order now. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from User talk:Biblioworm § Questions about deletions in relation to a permission you recently granted

@Xaosflux: Doesn't that create a WP:Parallel histories problem, or did I look at it wrong?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While there may be a very slight parallel history problem, as this page and its redirects were move and merged many times - I think this is the best way to clean it up at this time - the original author is still intact and it helps to get the "recent" activity (all log moves) put in one place in case anyone tries to figure out what happened 10 years from now when they want to rename it again! The "undo" of that merge at this point will make the logs even worse - if you strongly object to this result, let me know and we can work out a new solution. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xaosflux: No strong objections, what's done is done. Thanks for the reply and your reasonable attitude which seems to be a consistent trait of yours. Warmest Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc#Appearance, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input.  What's in your palette? Paine  17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Godsy, this is about some round-robin moves you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Jantar Mantar (Jaipur), Talk:Aleksandrovo (Nova Crnja), and Talk:Catedral de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (Ponce, Puerto Rico). I made this redirects from the old page to the new ones for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. I documented this at WP:PMVR#rr if it helps. Of course, these additional redirects to be created could also use good judgment, but a move without redirect suppression would produce them anyway. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the message, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry it took me so long to reply. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your ongoing reassessment of start/stub articles. Editors seem to have been very liberal in their classifications...

If you'd like, you can post a list of reassessments here that I can take care of them semi-automatically. If not, carry on.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tom.Reding: I'm going through the batch "by hand" (rather slowly due to the nature of the work and time constraints that currently effect the time I have to contribute), so I'm already at the page. As I'm viewing every one (except craters), it's as quick to edit them as it would be to compile a list. About 1 to 4 out of every 30 or so need re-assessment (i.e. they are unquestionably a stub). If I think of a better manner, or notice a pattern of a particular stub category that seems to consistently be in need of "re-stubbing", I'll let you know. Maybe re-assessing the articles to stub class when they're really short would be a better road to take in the future, as opposed to mass de-stubbing them. That being said, it would be nice if editors would assess them correctly in the first place. Thanks for your message and the offer. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Godsy! Thought I'd let you know that I've written a script here (js) that semi-automates round-robin moves for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for letting me know. Best Regards, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, but process for the sake of process is silly imo 😜 -FASTILY 23:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fastily: File redirects are generally retained. If you want to put it up for WP:CSD#G6, as the title was "unambiguously created in error" by the admission of the uploader, I wouldn't object. Of all of the criteria for speedy deletion, WP:CSD#R3 is the one I see misapplied most often. Even though this one isn't a particularly good redirect, process is important so that other reasonable ones aren't improperly deleted. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Godsy, what is your suggestion about the three userboxes that show up at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:/U created and used by KHBritish? I believe they are not properly titled, and should be moved to a more recognizable location. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: I'd suggest moving them to titles without the slashes (e.g. "Template:/Userbox/Benidorm" → "Template:Userbox Benidorm"), and leaving a notification on the creators talk page. Given the obscure format of what would then be the former titles, I'd suggest replacing all occurrences of them with the new titles (i.e. deprecate them), but retaining the redirects (unless you feel comfortable applying and would like to suppress them per G6). The userboxes could also be userfied as outlined at Wikipedia:Userfication#Template namespace content, but that is more controversial.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Godsy,

Thanks for the links at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. I can understand the rationale to have them, and can understand or at least accept that there are technical issues; I thought as much because to have over 47,000 deliberately empty categories seemed a bit strange. I was wondering why we have to (seemingly) have a pseudo-category for every single soft R, i.e. not one for each cat of R, but every single soft R has its own category, that is rather weird. What makes it worse is that these categories don't seem to show up in the drop-down links (on Mozlla Firefox add-in) so they are essentially some kind of WP:ORPHAN. Trew to the rescue, gives them some attention.

Perhaps we could add that link you gave, to the top of the category itself (i.e. add the target of WP:CATRED at the top?) Perhaps it already is and I missed it: I was fiddling around with lots of Rs and Cats and I didn't investigate this thoroughly. However I did not like the reply from another user that "This is not the reference desk. If you have no ideas, maybe you should go there?". That sounded rather patronising to me and not in the best WP:AGF. For one thing, the reference desk is (or should be) dealing with queries about articles in user space, not the fiddle-faddle of things in editor space. If you go to a reference desk in a library (if you can find a reference desk, or for that matter even a library, these days) then they don't start telling you about bookbinding, neither should the reference desk here start telling you about things in editor space.

The basic distinction I have, not mine another editor's but a damned good one some years ago, is not the namespace split of Portal:, WP:, Template:, Category: and so on but what is in reader space and what is in editor space. Category: is in reader space, Portal: is in reader space (a failed attempt to introduce Yet Another Way To Search, in my opinion, but the active ones are all right as clubs of enthusiastic editors; we already had many before portals such as WikiProjects like WP:MILHIST), Template: is in editor space, WP: is in editor space. That is the better distinction, even if Churchill said "A British man cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it" and we do that here, it is a better rule of thumb than what namespace something is in technically. Readers don't care. Our mission is to get people to where they want to go. We have redirects, categories, portals, search engines, drop-down tools and what not to get people where they want to go. Our gnomework is to make sure they get there. That is why I think redirects are more important than most do, because I think that is the primary way people get to where they want to go (if we get it right) or not (if we get it wrong). It's them that appear in the search tools that list mainspace, not Categories or Portals or whatnot. Redirects are (largely) in reader space whereas Categories are really not much in reader space (have you ever clicked on a category at the botom of an article to find other things in that category?) and the categorisation of categories is most definitely in editor space. Valuable though that is, R's are the front line. It's a pity so few care about them, really. Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Si Trew: No problem. Sorry for the delayed response. I read your message yesterday, but didn't have time to respond until now. I went ahead and added an explanation of these redirects to Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. I fully agree with the sentiment, which you implied, that the readers are our first priority. I was pleased to see you return to editing recently, and I look forward to continued collaboration with you in the future. Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why did you delete my sandbox it was not a tv guide it was not an official wikipedia page Roger Delacroix (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Luke de paul: I did not delete your sandbox, BDD did based on the consensus at the deletion discussion. What I did do was make a comment in the deletion discussion. I will note that it looks like Davey2010, the user who nominated the page for deletion, did not leave a notification on your talk page.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Afro engineering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro engineering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Redirect2.5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Godsy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

PS: Please note however, that the effort is to get all reviewers ultimately patrolling from the New Pages Feed and using the Page Curation tool (which is in the process of being significantly updated) in order to ensure that all reviewers are applying the same criteria and the same basic approach to new users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Cooking bananas

If you look at the bottom of the "Cooking plantain" talk page, it describes an effort to differentiate between plantains (AAB group) and cooking bananas (ABB group). But it looks like the term always excludes dessert bananas. --Bod (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bodhi Peace: Take a look at this, it's not the greatest source, but it differentiates by stating "cooking bananas and plantains". It would be more appropriate to discuss this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Cooking bananas, to avoid repetition, and so other interested parties see it. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Godsy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Godsy/Archive. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Awarded for taking a photograph of the flag carried by Voltaire P. Twombly at the Battle of Fort Donelson. Thanks a lot for taking this picture. The lack of a photograph of the flag was a major omission from the article that had been bothering me for some time. I am incredibly happy that there is now a Creative Commons image of the flag that can be added to make the article more complete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Godsy, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hang in there, and don't take anything to heart — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I basically came here to say the same. Some of these opposes are worth learning from, as is the case at even successful RfAs, but many of them are just absurd. I normally encourage candidates to withdraw when they're down, but in your case, I think you have an actual chance at rebounding. There are a limited supply of editors with nonsensical standards on the project, after all, and many who will support on principle after reading some of the oppose section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I definitely agree, Rob. As long as Godsy ends up in the "discretionary range", I'd be shocked if the 'crat(s) fail to promote him with the sheer quantity of ridiculous opposes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I co-nominate you? You have qualities I think we need as an admin, and I'd like to put my name behind your nomination. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork: I know that traditionally co-nominations should be taken care of prior to the start of the RfA, but I very much appreciate the offer, and your co-nomination is welcome if you think it is a good idea at this point.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. My screen is jumping due to some software issues, so I clicked save instead of preview and messed it up initially. Anyway, it's done now. If you get the tools I'll give you any advice you need, and would suggest you get in touch with me whenever you're about to do something you haven't done before or which may be contentious - such as blocking someone or deleting a page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I'm one of those that oppose you, but I want you to know that your RfA is the craziest I've ever seen. You've answered 20 questions so far and still maintained your aplomb. Regardless of how this shakes out, know that your nomination brought out the fury in our community unlike any other in recent memory. There may have been RfA's with more votes or with more mean things said but never in this volume. You have certainly earned some respect from me. In the future please chime in with your opinion anytime there are questions floated about reforming RfA. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I have opposed (which in my case only ever means "not right now; maybe a little bit later you'll be fine"), I agree that some of the oppose votes are stupid. Frankly I'd rather be in a minority of 5 reasonable bits of constructive criticism than amongst the silly season, and I actually now hope this RfA squeaks through with a pass just to teach them a lesson (I don't mind being proven wrong, I wonder who does?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think the RfA is going to pass. What you do with that information is up to you, although I should note that some editors are certain to unfairly hold a lack of withdrawal against you in your inevitable successful run in the future. Keep your head up, keep working as you have, and come back in 8–12 months (with a nomination - smh) for another chance. For some reason, !voters at RfA these days oppose even for things you did in your early days on the project the first time around, as if new editors never make mistakes. Sometimes it takes a "dry run" RfA just to get that out of their system. Next time, they tend to focus on the period between RFA #1 and RFA #2 (mostly), so consider it a fresh start in that sense. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No harm in letting it run, although it seems we both underestimated the "supply of editors with nonsensical standards" (in Rob's words) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At 66%, the RfA just crossed into the bureaucratic "discretionary zone". I would very much like to see this go into 'crat chat, just to evaluate the breadth of opinions presented. But I echo Rob's sentiment in case it isn't successful. Thank you for all that you do. Mz7 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curiously enough, it appears that the wave of support that pushed Godsy's RfA over 65% came after I posted my detailed analysis of the oppose votes. No one has, as of yet, supported per my analysis; perhaps it is considered too dangerous (just kidding ... I think) to support per someone who advocates for such strange ideas. Nonetheless, I do hope that I somehow contributed to turning the tide. I really hope this RfA can stay in the discretionary zone and survive a crat chat, because I very badly want to see a clear message sent concerning ludicrous opposes. Biblio (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think in general, it's not unusual to see a burst of activity over the weekend, when contributors have more time to look over a candidate's contributions and formulate their own stance. Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from User talk:Godsy § RfA

Rob may be right in his prediction of the outcome, but I want to make clear that for me it's not all about things you did in your early days on the project. You can pull me out of the neutral section by simply agreeing to implement the outcome of this deletion discussion. In other words, I'm waiting for Afro engineering to redirect to List of ethnic slurs. wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wbm1058: The closer stated "The possible merge/redirect targets are jury rigging#similar phrases and list of ethnic slurs. There's a slight, but probably not statistically significant, preference for list of ethnic slurs, and I'll admit to a slight supervote to break the tie in that direction." in their closing rationale. I had a discussion with them at their talk page where they said "Perhaps the best thing would be if you pinged the other AfD participants here and see what other people think." I did so, and there is now an ongoing request for comment on the matter, so it would not be appropriate for me to take that action at this time.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh come on now – I removed the ethnic slurs – "one wouldn't use "engineer" or "rigger" to refer to someone; they are used as adjectives (e.g. a "rigged car") and verbs (e.g. "engineer the air conditioner")." A "car rigger" rigs cars; an "air-conditioner engineer" engineers air conditioners. This sort of hair-splitting may be one reason for much of the opposition to your RFA. Sandstein has the right idea: Why not briefly mention the term on both pages? Don't try to write a book about the "topic". You could have been bolder in just fixing this... now the discussion has turned into a circus and you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. Good admins generally don't start fires like this in the first place, and on occasions when they inadvertently do, they are more skilled at controlling the fire before it gets out of control. wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I describe my view better at the RfC – All the terms at list of ethnic slurs are derogatory nouns referring to members of certain groups. In the case of the terms in question here, they aren't used in that manner (i.e. as nouns; e.g. to refer to subjects as an "afro engineer" or "nigger rig[ger]" is incorrect or at least obscure), they are used as adjectives (e.g. a "nigger rigged car"; to describe the way something was done; i.e. a "shoddily repaired car") and verbs (e.g. to "afro engineer the air conditioner"; to describe the act of doing something; i.e. to "shoddily repair the air conditioner"). Several other editors agree.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wp:deny

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. 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". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GXXF T • C 15:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Ignore that. I have warned the user. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure you'll get adminship but hope you try again as soon as possible on the off-chance it doesn't work out this time. LavaBaron (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck Godsy, I hope you pass. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like the RfA will be going to 'crat chat. If it does, I will post my rationale on the crat chat talk page as to why many of opposing editors have rationales that fail policy requirements and should therefore be discounted. Biblio (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your RfA is now pending closure by a Crat. Good luck. — Gestrid (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something to eat while you wait. If your RfA goes to a 'crat discussion, it'll likely be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. I suggest you go ahead and watchlist the page. — Gestrid (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know that, because of the borderline nature of you RfA, it has been closed as on hold by a Bureaucrat, WJBscribe, pending the outcome of a Bureaucrat discussion about your RfA. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. All non-Bureaucrats are welcome to comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. Good luck! — Gestrid (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• For what it's worth, I have posted my analysis on the talk page in favor of your RfA's success. Biblio (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Also for what it's worth, I regret the way that turned out, and I want to say that you conducted yourself admirably throughout. I believe we just lost a capable admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Resilient Barnstar

Well, that was pretty grueling, wasn't it? Regardless of what the final outcome is, I admire your resilience. Not once did you lose your cool, you treated everyone with respect, and you remain committed to improving Wikipedia. I was skeptical about some of the oppose rationales, but I thought others were pretty thoughtful. I hope you continue your positive work with those thoughts in mind. Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spirits

Thank you for Adam's ale and Noah's wine, for redirects, including their discussions, and dispute resolution, for file moves and cleaning up afterwards, for "This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your offer to serve as administrator. I regret to inform you that following a bureaucrat discussion, your RfA has been closed as no consensus.

Take comfort in the fact that you were supported by many well-respected editors and that many of those in opposition had kind words to say, as well as suggestions on how you might find success at RfA in the future. –xeno^talk 18:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You handled a miserable situation with commendable grace. If it's any consolation, it's only a couple of tools. Rest up, have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 23:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to echo the above words. The diplomacy, maturity, and temperament you demonstrated in your RFA is a textbook example of how we should behave as experienced editors and leaders. I'm sorry that your RFA wasn't successful, and I completely understand the frustration and stress that you may be feeling. Move on from this and walk forward, learn from the legitimate feedback you received, and I promise that you'll excel :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, many admins didn't get through their first RfA, myself included (and my first was also a self-nom!). Usually when someone doesn't make it in their first RfA there are points to discuss on how they can improve, in your case that's not possible because you already have all the qualities in place to become an admin. Don't be down heartened by the points brought forward by your opposers - it is not uncommon for minor points to be blown out of proportion, or to be misinterpreted, in a RfA. Many RfAs have gone screaming in the wrong direction after a few negative comments are made. If there's anything to work on, perhaps it is that when you disagree with someone on Wikipedia, reach out to them a little more. You communicate effectively, and keep communication on a professional, neutral level, which is as it should be. However, there is no harm in being a little more human when disagreeing with someone, and making it clear that you see things from their point of view - especially if you have clashed with them in the past. Offer people courtesies; so if, for example, you are about to re-open a discussion, then discuss the matter with the person who originally opened the discussion before you re-open it. Let them know what you are thinking, and why you feel the discussion should be re-opened. It is possible to argue and disagree with people, and not to alienate them. Keep well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been wondering for a while whether RfA has headed toward a place where a competent editor needs to "fail" an RfA just to be "rid" of the mistakes they made early on, since editors look back so far into an editor's history for reasons to oppose. I think this is the first clear-cut instance of that. I don't know that you really have to make all that many changes. If you keep doing what you're doing and come back in 9 months to a year, you'll be seen as having made "improvement", even though you had already improved by the time you ran. In other words, shake off the really old stuff. Focus on the few comments about more recent actions and work on those. Strive to be that little extra bit diplomatic, as it's good practice to avoid being in front of the proverbial firing squad once you become an admin. You're well on your way. Best of luck in the future. Oh, and for Christ's sake, get a nominator next time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry about your RfA, but you should be encouraged. Many current admins didn't pass their first RfA. Just take a look at this. Not only that, but your RfA closed as No consensus instead of Oppose. Work on the problems that you can fix that were brought up during the RfA and the 'crat chat and, in a few months six or (preferably) more months, find one or two well-known and well-liked admins who are willing to nominate you. While I personally have no problem with a self-nom, others may see it as somewhat prideful. Finding someone else to nominate you is much better than self-nominating (or even self-co-nominating) yourself. I look forward to supporting you in your next RfA. — Gestrid (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gestrid: Just as a note, given the RfA environment, it shouldn't be in a few months. There's a sizable contingent who would oppose on principle if an RfA were submitted that soon after one closed as no consensus. A bit silly, in my opinion, but that quick of a re-nomination would result in a SNOW close. 9-12 months is optimal. 6 months is the absolute minimum, and it would need to be a hell of a 6 months to make it possible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BU Rob13: Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if that wasn't implied. — Gestrid (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am personally and incredibly disappointed you were not promoted and very much hope you make a second attempt in the shortest time period possible. LavaBaron (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the time for discussion of this nature has passed (especially here) as the rfa and 'crat chat have concluded

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. I assumed that UNSC Luke 1021 posted this here because they rethought their opposition and wanted to leave a kind message. — Godsy (talk • cont) 20:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] Here's a cat. Sorry the RfA didn't work out. I voted against you, but it was because of minor, somewhat trivial reasons. The vote was extremely close, and you were a well-liked candidate by many. Good luck! UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] User:UNSC Luke 1021 why would you vote against a candidate for "somewhat trivial reasons?" Your vote was absolutely ridiculous and probably wasn't even considered by the closing bureaucrats. Dropping a kitten here on this user page is also pretty bad form. I hope this type of behavior isn't the norm from you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Sorry to hear it didn't work out. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It was tough, what all you had to go through, in the Rfa and in the crat chat. I applaud your composed responses throughout these two sessions. I know you might not be feeling up to it right now, but there's a very important positive side to this Rfa. And that is that this first Rfa, forms a basis for the community to create a cathartic marker of their feedback to you. You might perhaps already know this, but do please allow me to reiterate, that this marker means that the next time you come up for the Rfa (6 months, a year, whenever), the community would significantly focus on your intermediate edits between this Rfa and your next; confirming whether their feedback has been taken into context. So yes, I believe this is a positive way to look at this Rfa and a good pad to understand the community's feedback. My appreciation again for your demeanor throughout the process. Thanks. Lourdes 03:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hear, hear. I second that. Don't be disappointed (or worse). Keep going and try again at some point. Cheers, Yintan  12:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Godsy, the close of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 26#File:Maynemedical.jpg is inaccurate. The image is no longer used in one article. Can you undo the closure, so you can vote, or I can vote on it? --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@George Ho:  Done. I've commented there.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please look at File:BDSV.png again? I have put in a different file name and a different rationale from the one provided by Music1201 that you declined 5 months ago. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GeoffreyT2000:  Done under the new rationale that you provided. Merry Christmas to you as well, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, that page of Lauren Jauregui, i ask for a permission to the admin to delete all of this, and approves me, and i deleted. Please don't delete the page of Lauren Maxgoldman12334 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maxgoldman12334: Lauren Jauregui has been nominated for deletion by Cornerstonepicker at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Jauregui. You may participate there. Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! gives some good advice about this type of situation. As far as User:Maxgoldman12334/Lauren Jauregui goes, you may request its deletion per U1, or leave it as is.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please help me to dont delete the page of Lauren Jauregui, im new in that and i want help pleasee hahaha Maxgoldman12334 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Godsy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Godsy,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

🎊 Thanks Rubbish computer and Donner60. I hope the New Year goes well for you both. 🎊 Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]