User talk:Godsy/Archive/2015

2014

2015

2016

Murder of Kylie Maybury

See here for context

I just wanted to give Kylie a decent article. She deserves that. I'm sorry. Paul Austin (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries Paul Austin. I wasn't stating in any way that your request didn't have merit, or wasn't an upstanding thing to be doing. I just declined because it didn't follow protocol and didn't qualify for the particular type of dispute resolution you requested.

I hope your efforts to improve the article succeed. If you could use my help with any part of it, let me know, and I'll see what I can offer. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying, I'm just not sure how to do it. I've contacted journalists who reported on the case on the time and I sent an email to VIctoria Police asking if their Cold Case Squad can help. Paul Austin (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Missed the main thing

Thank you for your attempt to help us at Talk:Odin! I have now read your entry several times but I see no mention of the word Oden, there, which is the main topic of the section. Would be nice if you'd read the arguments about that and address that too. In case you mentioned something about it indirectly, I am not knowledgeable enough on some of those technical-linguistic terms to grasp that. --22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I did read the arguments and thought I had conveyed my stance, though perhaps I wasn't abundantly clear about my position on the specific issue at hand. My apologies. I have made an update to clarify. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham City

The following discussion is closed.

---

We've had it of your editing on Batman: Arkham City and trying to justify it for no good reasons, pal. You better leave as it or you'll going to blocked for disruptive editing. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Simply trying to improve the article and it seems that both of you dislike any changes/improvements to the article, verging on WP:OWN.

Inappropriate. —Godsy(TALKCONT)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Starting to wonder if WP:SOCK isn't at play here as well.

I didn't infringe on the 3 revert rule and User:Darkwarriorblake did. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightgodsy: You reverted about 6 or 7 edits in the last five days. Your editing on that article is not an improvement and it was a feature article. @Darkwarriorblake: will tell you about that. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightgodsy, these are the changes made to the article since the 27th of January here. So accusations of OWN and SOCK come across as petty lashing out because you're not getting your way. And you were given the warning because you were on the verge of reverting three times, my making an edit is not a revert. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: You broke the actual text of the WP:3RR rule by reverting 3 times in row today (24 hour period), I have not done that. You also like to use the term petty etc. to try and disparage others comments, that have potential sound backing that you don't agree with. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Jan 31, you've reverted myself, Battleship, and Y2KCrazyJoker. So justify it however you wish, you're reverting against the wishes of others and the second you didn't get your way you accused two editors of being hte same person and myself of OWN. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you that Darkwarriorblake and I are right. You reverted myself, Darkwarriorblake and Y2kcrazyjoker4 since that time, you didn't get your way and you wrongfully accused the two of us of being the sockpuppet, which we are not. You want to bet that kind of wrongful accusation could lead you being blocked. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: I stated that I wondered if that could potentially be the case, I never accused either of you directly of being sock puppets. Users such as the both of you get the idea that just because as you stated, it was a featured article, it can't benefit from any changes or improvement. Above that, Darkwarriorblake's revisions on several batman related articles are in the spirit WP:OWN because they feel a visceral attatchment being a major contributor to them. Frankly I'd have and would welcome a talk page discussion as opposed to this pointless back and forth. The fallacy of your ludicrous belief that you're both completely in the right is amusing. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan and Darkwarriorblake: Also, any other reversions I've made have been due to lack of an edit summary when it was a clear reversion AND after discussion without response here. So your idea that I've infringed up on the WP:3RR really holds no weight. Darkwarriorblake however CLEARLY broke this rule. Also WP:BRD that you've brought up is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and I wouldn't necessarily consider the edits I made really that bold.

@Lightgodsy: You have reverting our edits since 8 days as well, which is considered a violation of WP:3RR, regardless of some others might say. Think about that, pal. You're just blowing off steam due to the fact that you're not getting your way in that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Well Pal, you seem to like to make blanket statements without citing actual text of the rule, or providing sound backing/examples. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. I never did that. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightgodsy, Darkwarriorblake, and Y2kcrazyjoker4: Newsflash, Lightgod. You committed 3RR either way, regardless of how long it supposed to be. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Again stating something (incorrect by the way), with no backing. And the reply to tag to bring others in to potentially back you up, because you lack your own reasoning, or the ability to state it. I'm done with this, it's unproductive. Guard the article if you like (WP:OWN), everything I've done as been an attempt to improve the article. I'm done with it. —Lightgodsy

WP:REFERS

You reverted a few of my recent changes without explanation. These were all badly worded lead paragraphs that had problems that are explained in WP:REFERS. If you read WP:REFERS I think you will understand my edits. Bhny (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are taking revenge for an edit I did. This is a bit childish. Bhny (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bhny: I simply disagree with the style you are choosing conform/standardize the encyclopedia with. The accusation you brought here is unprofessional and if conversation is to continue in any manner here, it should be kept civil. WP:LEAD (specifically but not limited to WP:BOLDTITLE and placement in lead) should clarify potentially. WP:BOLD should handle any concerns not covered by the preceding. Editors are allowed to edit any pages they so desire, no one owns any of them. Simply trying to improve Wikipedia.—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Gun Control

Further information: Talk:Nazi gun control theory § Hat note and lead

Hi, this article has been the subject of a lot of controversy in the past. If you look at the talk page, you can get a good picture about that controversy. Basically, any kinds of edits to this article by anyone are apt to boomerang in some way, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Anyway, I am going to undo a bit of what you did, and please understand that sometimes a smaller edit is more lasting than a big one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I went ahead and changed a bit myself as well. My edits were split quite a bit, the one was big because of the references. I just noticed how the language in the article isn't very neutral. The opinion that this is a minority view can be conveyed with due weight and without such condemning tone. I personally don't have strong feelings either way about the validity of this subject, but I see that some do.

Thank you for the message. Moving forward though we should discuss anything concerning this on the articles talk page, so other interested editors can see the discussion and participate. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably stay away from that article for awhile. It's kind of like a merry-go-round; a lot of going in circles. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

His or her v they

Hello, according to Wikipedia guidelines we are to use gender-neutral language. According to the Wikipedia article on gender-neutral language (which the guideline references), the use of "he or she" is perfectly acceptable usage.

And then further, taking a cue from the manual of style where it talks about dates, we are not to change from one perfectly acceptable style to another unless there is a good reason to do so based on a consensus view.

Personally I use the singular they in all my writings in all contexts but I do not get to control how Wikipedia operates. A consensus was formed and I abide by it. If you think there needs to be a new guideline then propose your change and work to build a new consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@SQGibbon:"As of January 2010, there is no consensus either for or against the use of the singular "they" in Wikipedia.". There are other examples where users systematically edit Wikipedia to their personal taste such as the user behind this essay WP:COMPRISEDOF. I have not gone nearly that far, I merely changed a few instances, which I think is fair game under WP:BEBOLD. If someone disagrees it is there right to revert me. Unless I feel the need to specifically gain a consensus for that particular articles usage, I would leave it at that.

As for as the dates are concerned, the only instance (that I recall) changing is Noah's Ark, which was changed by a user in this edit. I changed it back accordingly (as it is a better fit and there is no consensus per WP:Era).

If there is a place that says point blank do not change without consensus in a policy or guideline (not an essay which doesn't state that clearly anyhow), please bring this to my attention. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The "comprised of" issue is not necessarily one of style but of what is considered grammatical usage in the prestige dialects of English. The "they vs him/her" is not an issue of grammar on Wikipedia but merely one of style. That's why I brought up the point about not changing date styles -- Wikipedia frowns upon people changing styles when either one is perfectly acceptable. Changing "improper" grammar is a different issue.

As for as the dates are concerned, the only instance (that I recall) changing is Noah's Ark. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you had done this, I was only creating an analogy by pointing out the guidelines with respect to date styles with the consensus view that we not change the from one equally valid style to another. What you were doing is the same thing as changing all the "BC"s to "BCE"s -- changing from one acceptable style to another without consensus/good reason.

If there is a place that says point blank do not change without consensus in a policy or guideline (not an essay which doesn't state that clearly anyhow), please bring this to my attention. I never said or implied any such thing and at this point believe you are being disingenuous. People are allowed and encouraged to edit Wikipedia without consensus. But changing from one perfectly acceptable style that has already been established in an article to another just because you like the other does go against general Wikipedia practice as it leads to pointless edit wars. In all of these article the "his or her" style had been long established, thus achieving a silent consensus from the people who have edited the article, and seeing as it is a perfectly acceptable style, then one should not go around changing it without first building a new consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I will take your advice under advisement, and be more selective if I choose to change that in the future. Perhaps a consensus would be more appropriate in most cases. I do not plan to continue to change it in the manner or amount I did a few days ago, unless something changes (i.e. guideline/consensus changes, or new information arises). Thank you. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

DS/alert - gun control

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

discretionary sanctions template

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Lightbreather (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not putting this here to be a jerk, but it occurs to me today that you actually may not be aware of this. Lightbreather (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Regarding a message

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

" Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "

Godsy - Regarding this message you put on my page, what the heck does it refer to? (Please do NOT answer on my talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems clear to me that it refers to this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Godsy exceeded three single edits/series of edits in last 24 hours at Nazi gun control theory:

• 21:41, 18 April 2015, UTC (single edit)
• 22:26, 18 April 2015, UTC (single edit)
• 22:35, 18 April 2015, UTC (series of two edits)
• 20:34, 19 April 2015, UTC (single edit)

What I'm asking him to explain is why he thinks that's not a violation of 3RR (and removed my warning). Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The username "Godsy" has been registered a little under five months, but their edits show more knowledge about and/or confidence with policy. Lightbreather (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the last one is a revert, as the edit summary suggests Godsy may have been undoing what Godsy reasonably believed to be his own error. But I'll butt out now and let you two enjoy each others' company.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Notice of SPI

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.

---

I don't believe I am required to do it, and I do not take pleasure in doing it, but I am here to notify you that I have started an SPI against you. Lightbreather (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

Nazi gun control theory

Your edits here are a significant improvement. Thank you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve the article, and bring it into accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for the past few months. There has been considerable resistance. It's nice to know that someone approves . —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

IRC request

The following discussion is closed.

---

Your request over IRC has been granted by the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on article content

See also: User talk:Terminegen § WP:3O

a good faith attempt to help a user

I'd love to have a discussion on the article in question. Except that the other party is not willing to have a civil discussion on it. Instead, he continues to dismiss every valid point I present, claiming he's correct. Then he finally says he will not discuss it anymore, and instead continues to revert to his own edits. I'm sorry, but how exactly am I supposed to establish a discussion with the person who ignores everything I post, simply wiped his hands of the issue and claims that he's right no matter what?Terminegen (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC) @Terminegen: Another form of dispute resolution may help. While the WP:30 system could not be of help in this case, I would personally suggest a request for comment (RfC) to bring other editors into the discussion. The RfC should establish a consensus on the issue at hand. There are other options as well such as noticeboards, though I'm not sure if that would be appropriate yet in this situation. I hope that helps. Feel free to direct any more questions you might have to me here- I'll see if I can help, or point you to somewhere/someone who can. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC) I really appreciate your willingness to help me. I have disputed this matter since the end of March. So far, nobody has been willing to help with the issue; and I certainly haven't made it easier on myself by figuratively shooting myself in the foot by insulting the guy (I lost my cool, I admit; but I was absolutely frustrated that everybody agreed to allow the person's edits to the article despite them being evidently false, without even at least looking into the edits and evidence). I assure you that the information I put in the article is correct, based on the evidence I provided; but if need be, I would definitely like to request for comment to invite other editors to discuss the content issue (not the article's title, however; that, I have no problem with). Side note, I do not feel that it is worth citing any sources for the correct title of the video game because, first of all, it's the title of the video game (imagine if every wikipedia article on a video game needed to cite a source for the game's title); second, every reputable source agrees on the matter and that is over 20 sources.Terminegen (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC) @Terminegen: A RfC will being other editors into the discussion. Good sources are a start. Citing policies and guidelines (or even the odd essay) is another way to back up your position if they apply. Consensus may or may not go your way. However, at least it will be decided by the community, and not (from what you've expressed to me here) the will of one editor. Behaving in a civil way always helps, even if you've had a misstep in the past.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Alright, this is noted. I'm going to put up an RfC on the article's talk page. My only minor question is that would this fall under the category of media (rfc|media)?Terminegen (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC) @Terminegen: "|media|sci" are the parameters I would use. I'd also suggest mentioning it somewhere within WikiProject video games. Be sure to keep the RfC wording neutral, then express your opinion within the first post. Just noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block the user Verdy_p from editing a certain article. I didn't read the whole thing, but you'll want to be on your best behavior henceforth. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Will do. I wanted to use that noticeboard to bring the matter of that user continuously reverting article content to his own without any validation; it had nothing to do with my misconduct here on wikipedia, but that is constantly being brought up by others as justification to dismiss my legitimate complaint about the quality and validity of articles on here (which will only damage the site's reputation long-term). I have not been inflammatory in today's discussions, rest assured.Terminegen (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3O question from Dentren

See also: User talk:Dentren § WP:30

Are you suggesting my 3O was not concise or neutral? Please explain. Dentren | ^Talk 19:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dentren: That template covers a lot of bases, sorry for the confusion. You fully signed your post. The process guidelines state that requests are to be signed with a timestamp only (~~~~~ 5 tildes). I neutralized it for you [1], and left you that template message so you would be aware of that in the future. Another user declined your request, and left an explanation in their edit summary [2].
Update: @Dentren and Robert McClenon: My apologies they declined the other request that was there, not yours. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Because I am involved in content disputes I don't wan't to have posts that suggest (or can be interpreted as) I'm presenting my disputes for others in a non-neutral or biased way. Dentren | ^Talk 19:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

COI help at Analog Devices

See also: Talk:Analog Devices § suggested updates

Hello! A few months ago you helped me with a minor COI edit request for Analog Devices. I've posted a few more suggestions for updates/additions to the article, and I'd be really grateful if you could take a look and offer any feedback. Any help is appreciated - thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I completed part of your request today. I'll try to get to the rest of it soon, assuming no one else responds to the request. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA vote

This read to me like a support vote; did you really want it to be neutral? (Neutral votes aren't counted by the 'crats when assessing an RfA consensus.) All the best, Miniapolis 15:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Just wanted to make a comment about a recent action by the RfA candidate, for others to possibly factor into their vote. Didn't do enough research, or have enough interaction with the user for a Support vote. Thanks, anyhow. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner

See also: Talk:Caitlyn Jenner § Retained male genitalia

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Caitlyn Jenner, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Misgender"

Please stop removing/substituting this word. It is not a neologism, it's defined in the Oxford. Skyerise (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither Merriam Webster [3] or Dictionary.com [4] define the term. According to the Wikipedia article on Transphobia it was coined by Julia Serano, the date of the "coining" is not given. A neologism, again from this encyclopedia, "is the name for a newly coined term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language". I think this word fits within the definition of a neologism, and its use should be avoided per MOS:NEO. Though Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster are not to be cited at Wikipedia, the OED isn't totally au courant either.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion closed as it "isn't an ANI issue, it is a WP:MOS issue."—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions template

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. —Skyerise (talk)

"Deadnaming"

Hi Godsy, you're absolutely right that "deadnaming" is a neologism, but its use at Transphobia is appropriate. First of all, it's sourced. Secondly, the term is in quotation marks both in the reference and the body of our article. This is a common way of marking neologisms. A lot of transgender-related words are neologisms, of course. If someone were going around introducing "deadnaming" in other articles (e.g., "People deadname Chelsea Manning by calling her Bradley"), that would probably not be appropriate. But since it's specifically discussed as a word at Transphobia, there's really nothing wrong with it. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: I added the quotes to the word in this edit. I agree with you about the Use–mention distinction.

Out of curiosity, do you think "misgender" is a neologism as well? You seemed to have a good rationale behind your opinion about deadnaming, so I wondered if you felt any differently about the other term. There are about 7ish articles where it is present, and it is used (as opposed to mentioned) in some of them.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say "misgender" is a neologism too, though it's better established, and I wouldn't use quotation marks with it when not signalling a use–mention distinction. Ultimately, "misgender" and "deadnaming" are efficient words, concisely expressing what otherwise would at least take a whole sentence. And they're used in popular and scholarly sources alike. Not all neologisms are alike. The important thing is that we make sure we reflect and/or cover the language used in external sources, and that we're not promoting neologisms. To some extent, adding anything to Wikipedia is "promoting" it, but that is what it is. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Scalia

the continuation of a discussion that originated on another users' talk page; wp:notforum

Further information: User talk:Drmies § A day to celebrate "I thought the final paragraph of Scalia's dissent was equally well written."—Godsy No offense to you, as I'm sure you're a good person, but many people read Scalia's dissent as that of a toddler having a temper tantrum. Could one possibly describe a toddler's temper tantrum as better or worse than another? Perhaps, but it's a tantrum just the same. If there was a way to remove Scalia from the bench, he would have been removed a long, long time ago. He is an embarrassment to the United Sates of America, and there's actually an international consensus on that point. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, John Adams said this in 1777: “ I believe there is no one Principle, which predominates in human Nature so much in every stage of Life, from the Cradle to the Grave, in Males and females, old and young, black and white, rich and poor, high and low, as this Passion for Superiority .... Every human Being compares itself in its own Imagination, with every other round about it, and will find some Superiority over every other real or imaginary, or it will die of Grief and Vexation. I have seen it among Boys and Girls at school, among Lads at Colledge, among Practicers at the Bar, among the Clergy in their Associations, among Clubbs of Friends, among the People in Town Meetings, among the Members of an House of Reps. [Representatives], among the Grave Councillors, on the more solemn Bench of justice, and in that awfully August Body the Congress, and on many of its Committees -- and among Ladies every Where.... ” Perhaps this addresses why so many straights think themselves superior to gays, why so many judges think themselves superior to legislators, and why you think yourself superior to Justice Scalia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I think Bill Maher said it best: This was not an easy week to be a conservative in America. Not just Bristol Palin and gay marriage -- Obamacare was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Republicans were like, if people can marry, and raise children, and be well, what's to become of family values? That says it all, I think. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I hadn't realized that Bristol Palin was supposed to be my top concern. I better get with the program! If Maher and Viriditas are most concerned about Bristol Palin, or think that Republicans are most concerned about Bristol Palin, then I guess I should turn my attention to Bristol Palin instead of being concerned about all the longstanding laws that just got wiped off the books by five lifetime appointees over the objections of tens of million of citizens. Appointees who insanely contend that people will be "condemned to live in loneliness" unless their self-styled "marriage" is confirmed as such by a state-issued certificate (and absent any loneliness-related clause of the Constitution).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I wasn't going to reply to this, but you got me thinking. Do you really not understand why Bristol Palin is mentioned here, and how conservatives have a long history of railing against unwed mothers? You may not know this, but I often find it difficult to tell if you are being serious. After all, you have authored such comedy gold as "User:Arzel is one of the best editors at Wikipedia". I mean, that's just hilarious! Who said conservatives don't have a sense of humor? Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I've never railed against unwed mothers. Has Scalia done that? I must have missed where he did that. I think statistics do show that a child does better with both a father and a mother. But being an unwed mother is wonderful compared to some of the alternatives like aborting a fetus. Lots of policy discussion at Wikipedia today, eh? I really don't pay attention to Bristol Palin. I'm way more concerned about actual public officials. Feel free to bring up Dennis Hastert if you want, so that we can slam Republicans some more. Or Nixon. But Bristol Palin is just not someone who I feel obliged to take responsibility for. If you keep at it, maybe I'll blow my top like FactChecker!  :-) I give you one of the most sophisticated and penetrating quotes from the founders of the United States, and all you can give me is Bill Maher on Bristol Palin?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC) If you think I'm slamming anyone, let alone Republicans for that matter, then you aren't paying attention. We have a moderate Republican president currently in the White House, you know.[5] Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I took your endorsement of the Bill Maher quote to be an endorsement of his criticism aimed at conservatism and Republicans. Anyway, please take the last word if you like, I gotta go.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC) At the end of the day Maher isn't criticizing conservatives or Republicans. He's criticizing extremism. Republicans can easily win the next presidential election by supporting a moderate candidate, someone like John Kasich, for example. Instead, they have chosen to put their energy into backing the most unelectable candidates possible, all of whom espouse some type of extremism. In any case, there is general agreement in reasonable circles that Obama is a moderate Republican based on his policies and actions in office. So, with Democrats already leaning right, the current batch of extremist conservatives would be best served by having their party sever all ties with them. In a rational world, that's what would happen, but the Republican Party stopped being rational when they embraced fundamentalists and fabulists. Scalia is the worst of the bunch, and history will not be kind to him. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC) "Obama is a moderate Republican", that's an interesting viewpoint. I disagree, but in fairness, I'll offer you the chance to defend your position. I definitely wouldn't consider him a conservative. I actually disagree with you on another point, I think the problem is that the republican party picks candidates that are too moderate (e.g. McCain and Romney). To address what you originally came here about: I generally try to limit my comments about stuff like this, though I enjoy watching the conversation take place. I broke when I saw people praising the langauage of the opinion of the court and comparing it to poetry. I think it was more a case of bais. Instead of calling the court opinion quote exceptional writing, "I agree with this language" would have been a more accurate statement by the poster. For that matter, my statement about Scalia's writing shares the same type of bias. My personal opinion is that anyone regardless of sex should be entitled to a "union", and the same rights (e.g. sharing insurance benefits, filing joint taxes, hospital visitation rights, etc.). Whether this fits within the definition or should be called marriage, is debatable; personally I don't think so. The court overstepped, by "making" this law, because it's just their opinion. The states they're forcing gay unions upon, don't have the institution established, therefore there is no law for the court to evaluate.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your charitable reply. I gave you an external link up above that summarizes the "Obama is a moderate Republican" position, which quite frankly, is easy to prove. Virtually every position liberals and progressives supported, Obama either moved to the right on, or outright opposed in line with conservatives. Liberals wanted single payer but got ACA instead, a conservative idea. Liberals wanted Guantanamo closed, but it remains open, in line with conservatives. Liberals wanted the drone program stopped, but drone strikes increased, at the behest of conservatives. Liberals wanted cannabis moved to Schedule 2 and decriminalized, but the policy remains the same per conservatives. Liberals wanted the defense budget slashed and all forces brought home, but that hasn't happened per conservatives. Liberals wanted policy on torture tightened and condemned and those responsible brought to justice. To date, nobody involved with torture has been prosecuted, while many have in fact been promoted. Liberals wanted the Patriot act repealed, but Obama supported renewal, along with conservatives. The list goes on and on. And before you make the argument that gay marriage is a liberal idea, I have to tell you that is hogwash. After living and working in San Francisco for many years, I can tell you, there are many conservative LGBT, and the fact is, "marriage" is a conservative idea. Obama's policies are no different than a moderate Republican, and he has not taken action on any liberal or progressive policy or idea. Finally, the idea that McCain and Romney were unelectable because they were too moderate is silly and misses the point by a mile. Both were poor candidates. Romney couldn't connect with people who had actual jobs, and McCain couldn't connect with the youth vote. You need to pick candidates that people actually like and want to vote for, not candidates the party likes. And everyone knows a candidate has to come to the center to get elected. This country does not need another extremist, another warmonger, or another one-percenter. And it certainly doesn't need a religious fanatic. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC) I agree that Obama has leaned right on some things (but some of that was simply compromise- i.e. healthcare). Some things he takes a left leaning position on (e.g. guns, some aspects of foreign policy, etc.), really haven't materialized into policy or law. A lot of your points above can be written off because he has the hurdle of the Legislative branch. If he had free reign, I assume he'd have taken more liberal courses of action. It isn't so simple ending a war or closing a prison, and there are limits to executive orders. I wouldn't consider repealing the Patriot act a liberal position (many conservatives support this too). While we can look back at the president's record so far for the first issue, the other issue is a lot more abstract. We can't say for certain if a more conservative candidate had run in place of Romney or McCain (at least with my perception that they were too close to the middle being relevent), how they'd have fared. Nor can we say what type of candidate will fare best in the next election cycle with any certainty. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the latter.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Godsy, do you have any independent evidence (not right-wing punditry) that McCain and Romney lost because they were too moderate and not conservative enough? McCain's running mate was an extremely poor choice and worked against his campaign. He was simply too close to Bush and nobody wanted Bush light. Romney, however, was an altogether different matter. He did very, very well in the debates, but his commentary about working people and his haughtiness worked against him. He just seemed completely out of touch with normal, everyday working people. In both cases, nothing about their moderate or conservative views had anything to do with their losses. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Censoring others' comments

See also: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded § Religious figures

In the future I suggest you obtain permission from the involved parties before you censor comments that aren't yours, per WP:TPO. And to censor comments of two editors but issue a warning to only one is WP:HOUNDING and uncivil behaviour. Cobblet (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I disagree that my actions conflicted with WP:TPO. That behavioral guideline states:

Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

I censored (hat'd) both comments in the spirit of fairness, though I'd only consider your comment to be a violation of the no personal attacks policy. That's why I only left a message on your talk page, and not the other editor involved. I definitely wouldn't consider my action in question to be hounding. Discussions should always be kept civil and professional.

All that being said, I harbor no ill will towards you, and look forward to collaborating with you on the vital article nomination page in the future. I enjoy your comments and nominations there. Respectfully, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility itself is also policy, and I consider pbp's actions uncivil baiting and found the belligerence in his tone ("calling your bluff") needless, groundless and offensive. I'm not impressed by your continued condoning of said behaviour, and would advise you to proceed much more carefully in the future should you make it a habit of intervening in discussions between other people. Pbp is a more experienced editor than you or me, and can speak for himself just fine. We have a long history of speaking frankly to each other on this page, but I do regret this exchange has gotten more heated than is necessary. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: I wasn't condoning Pbp's behavior, I just didn't think it met the bar for a personal attack. Perhaps it was baiting, I censored their comment as well as it didn't seem to have a good faith tone (as you just suggested). I used discretion and chose not to leave them a talk page notification, which is allowed.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Allowed, sure; but think more carefully about how your actions will be perceived the next time you choose to play the part of a policeman, or you might find yourself causing more drama, not less. Cobblet (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The eye of the beholder can always often a contentious matter. I just don't see it the same way on this occasion. My view at the time that one of the censored comments was perhaps less severe than another and didn't warrant a notification, seems to be the issue at the core here. I could suggest you not take what you perceive to be the bait next time, but I don't think any further discussion on the matter would be productive. I use warning/notification templates when I think they are warranted, not based on how they'll be perceived. All the best,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Godsy, while I don't like the words Cobblet used and you were well within policy to collapse portions of the discussions, I wish you had not collapsed them. The discussion is still ongoing; with luck it will continue in a more civil manner. pbp 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope the discussion continues in a civil manner as well; hence I only collapsed a small portion of the discussion.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

John Collins Covell

I'm taking you up on your offer to run something by you. I just reviewed and copyedited John Collins Covell from the special requests lists at the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. In the section John Collins Covell#West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind I made two block quotes from quotes that had been within the paragraphs. However, when they were within the paragraphs, they each started with a lower-case letter, suggesting that it was not the beginning of a sentence in the original text (which I have not checked). When making block quotes, I think they look better when starting with a capital letter (although I suppose they don't have to), so I capitalized the first letter of each quote and put the capital letter in square brackets to indicate it was not in the original. I don't know if this is right. Do you know? CorinneSD (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Per MOS:QUOTE, "Changing capitalization so that sentences begin with capital letters and do not have unnecessary capitals in the middle". Changing the format a bit for the sake of typographic conformity (a paractice universal among publishers) is allowed by making "alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud". So yes, capitalizing the beginning is fine. However, I'll have a quick look at the source used for the quote to see if ellipsis are necessary, or if the text was changed inappropriately by whoever added them.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I will mark it "Done" when I hear back from you. CorinneSD (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD:

• The first quote and second quote start with "Reolved Then" and "Since then" respectively. I can see why this was removed; the context is lost, as it refers to prior text. When a quote is broken apart, I prefer to use ellipsis (making capitalization unnecessary) such as:

"... with untiring zeal and fidelity, he has labored" (just a small sample of the quote)

• If the word is capitalized, and ellipsis aren't used, it's unclear whether brackets are needed around the letter (MOS:BRACKET).
• Upon checking a general style guide, I'm wrong. The current style is correct. Brackets should be used around the first letter of the qoute, and it should be capitalized.

• The exception to this would be if the beginning of the quote started with a capital letter (such as a proper noun), but was a partial sentence, then ellipses would be warranted. Otherwise the letter in brackets (i.e. "[W]" in both of the quotes in question), already signifies that this is the middle of a sentence.

• The only suggestion I'd make is to add "his" directly before "[Covell's]" to preserve the text entirely. While either is allowed, the maual of style says, "But even here [in this type of situation] consider an addition rather than a replacement of text."

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent CSD request

Hi Godsy, I just wanted to pop by and make a quick comment about User:Antics456, a page we both recently tagged for speedy deletion. I noticed that you tagged it as G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. While I agree that the user page was a candidate for speedy deletion, I am not sure G5 was the appropriate criteria as the user had not made any edits to the page while they were actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify. Instead, I believe the user page qualified under G3: Pure vandalism as it was clear by the content and the user's edits that they were acting in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this and thank you for your assistance in cleaning up the user's edits. MJ94 (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@MJ94: Actually, I tagged it as WP:U5 (Pages in a userspace consisting of information not closely related to Wikipedia's goals where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages) the first and second time. I added WP:G5 as well as U5 (tag with multiple criteria) the second time in my haste erroneously. I don't think it was technically vandalism because it was a user editing their own userspace. I suppose viewing the page as belonging to the encyclopedic community, I could get behind it being called vandalism, though certain leeway is given within this namespace. Whether or not it was indeed vandalism aside, I think the U5 tag was a better fit. The user kept clearing speedy delete tags inappropriately, and I was happy to assist. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Adam's ale

Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of post for 3O

See also: User talk:Naypta § Your request at the Third Opinion Project page, and Talk:Gordon Walsh § Issues with this page

Hey there, you removed my request for WP:3O on the grounds of insufficient discussion having taken place. There was further discussion at my talk page here, however if that is not sufficient then what other dispute resolution channels are available for use? | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 06:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The matter is a moot point; the article creator has just added another reference. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 06:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Naypta: At the time I delisted/declined it, it only had one post. It then rapidly progressed. As more discussion had taken place, I was going to say you could relist it. However, as you said, at least that particular aspect of the dispute now seems to be resolved. All the best,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making a note on the article talk page, I appreciate it. The contributor who I was having a dispute with has just made several inappropriate comments about me on my talk page, I thought it would be worth noting here that if it occurs again I will be taking action through the admin intervention page. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 07:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting there, as you were posting here (again). —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

hehe | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 07:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. A short four-paragraph stub should not have sections period, and should certainly not be tagged as needing them. A third party has already pointed out that it should never have been one-source tagged in the first place per that template's instructions. This is an appalling way to treat people who write new articles: people point out that you were in the wrong so you just keep trying to find things to pointlessly tag the articles with. It was bad enough that Naypta was doing it, but now it seems you're joining in the act. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: My actions were not harassment, nor have I mistreated you. Tagging an article that has possible issues is a common practice for all articles, especially new ones. My actions were made in good faith, as I assume most users actions who tag pages are. Secondly, disagreeing with something is no excuse to edit war on the page in question. Civilly discussing it on the talk page is the way to go.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You section-tagged a four-paragraph stub (an stub so short another editor trying to appease your wish so you would go away had to add a "biography" heading), and then you reverted to keep it there. A neutral editor has already pointed out on the talk page that this practically screamed WP:POINT on your part.

There was no legitimate "possible issue" there. Don't be that guy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: [6] That's not true ([at the least mischaracterized by how you stated it]). Look at the edit history, I reverted you removal of the tag, not the fix.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You reverted to keep the tag there, is clearly what TDW is saying. But as I've said elsewhere, let's all move on. Frickeg (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've responded on the articles talk page.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole

See also: Talk:Gun show loophole § Revised 2001 BJS report

"You" are not the consensus on GSL. Stop reverting and take it to the talk page please. I have commented and have issue with your removal of my edit. Take it to RS, or we can just remove the whole thing for now. Cheers. Darknipples (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I have commented on the talk page. I have not claimed to be the "the consensus on GSL". It's a ridiculous idea for an individual to be "the consensus", as it is against the nature of consensus. Generally when controversial additions to an article are contested, they are removed for the time being. The conversation should be kept civil. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we just got off on the wrong foot, or if it's simply a matter of miscommunication. I am one of the founders of the GSL article and I'm used to people vandalizing, trolling, and even bullying other editors because the article revolves around such a sensitive subject. I, myself, have received more than my fair share of abuse [7]. I've seen editors come, go, and banned over zealotry. I apologize if I've been offensive or abrasive, but I'm also wary of any edits by anyone, including myself, that lean in favor of one political agenda over another. Hence, it has been easier to try and maintain a balance of political references throughout the article, as per NPOV. Hopefully that helps you to understand my motives rather than just letting you assume I'm whatever it is you may think I am. Darknipples (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a mix of both (the wrong foot and miscommunication). As an American, I have a view on the issue, we'd be hard pressed to find any who don't have at least a basic one. Regardless of what it might be, it had nothing to do with my reversion of your addition. It was simply not backed up by the source provided for the first half of the sentence, which is vital (so it's not WP:OR) when adding it in that manner. I don't think this was your intention, as you stated you were attempting to add "balance". I became frustrated when you alluded that I was there to joke, troll, or vandalize, and with the "'You' are not the consensus on GSL" as if I claimed that I was. That is why I made my "There doesn't seem to be a point in responding sometimes..." comment.

Moving forward, I'd be happy to leave the past behind us. Perhaps we can both adjust our behavior slightly, and collaborate better in the future with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.

Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (The Civility Barnstar)

	The Civility Barnstar
	Earned. Darknipples (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you . I noticed your most recent post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gun show loophole; your suggestion is reasonable. I'll probably reply there or on the talk page either tonight or tomorrow.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Christianisation of Scotland

Hello! Your submission of Christianisation of Scotland 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Service Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		Congratulation Godsy, I give this to you for your continued service to the Third Opinion Project. Thank you for maintaining and answering requests. — Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Christianisation of Scotland

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! [comments from an IP]

comments replied to in good faith

Just curious, who the fuck do you think you are? The arbiter of Wikipedia? You'll never be an admin. My edits were completely legitimate, and you have literally 0 right to take them down. I'll keep reverting them, so stop harassing me you loser.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8301:FF60:9DF8:1246:98C4:D28B (talk • contribs) You appear to have no contributions [8] outside of my user talk page at this time, so you'll have to be more specific. I'd also suggest taking a look at the conduct polices, specifically WP:NPA, based on the wording and tone you've used here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RfD

I have discussed the point with WilyD about his 'there is no rationale for deletion' arguments, as Tavix did on his user talk page 2 months ago. He will keep on saying this so you don't need to point out that this is inaccurate. Ignore him and feel free to point out when he is bludgeoning the discussion, if he starts doing that again. There is no rationale for his argument that there is no rationale. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 13:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I made an effort to engage in a reasonable discussion with them and I was shot down. Thanks,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

ANRFC notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure regarding speedy administrative closure for multiple reasons. The thread is "Administrative".The discussion is about the topic MOS:ENGVAR templates. Thank you. -- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Noah's wine

Hello! Your submission of Noah's wine 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Noah's wine

Gatoclass (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was a pretty successful hook, given its position in the middle of the order. Noah's wine got a total of 9,065 hits and Adam's ale garnered an additional 5,603 hits. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Indeed, I checked the page views early this morning. Its success is definitely due in no small part to your suggested hook, which is much more catchy than the ones I put forth. Thank you very much for your input to the nomination.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete "Jean Lambert-Wild"

Hello Godsy, Thank you for your message, can you , please, delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Lambert-Wild BUT PLEASE, keep "Jean Lambert-wild" article which is OK with the sources. So, Thanks to be careful, you can delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" with uppercase "W", but keep the article with tiny "w". When I transleted "Jean Lambert-wild" article in english, Wikipédia had a bug, so I published again, and now there 2 articles, so, you ca delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" when you want. Thank you very much. Best regards. Wikiraguse (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)WikiraguseWikiraguse (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiraguse: I can't delete the page (I'm not an administrator so I lack the ability). I can redirect the page to Jean Lambert-wild, which I think is more appropriate in this situation anyhow, as it is an alternate capitalization. I was unaware that the intended topic already existed under another name. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Godsy: Done! Thank you very much for your contribution. Best. Wikiraguse (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Promotional link you removed is back again

Hello Godsy, your correct change here per WP:ADV,[9] has been reverted now.[10] I suspect the entire article "Home storage ira" exists solely to house that linkspam, and the content needs to be merged-and-redirected into a more suitable and more generic article about Individual Retirement Accounts. If you agree, can you add the article in question to the AfD queue? Or if not, let me know and I'll see about doing it. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@75.108.94.227: Thank you for letting me know. I'll look into it, I had some of those same thoughts myself. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. I did find Gold IRA which seems to be the relevant subtopic, of which Home storage ira is in turn a sub-sub-topic. Not sure if Gold IRA has the same issues, but it looks like more editors have been working on it, and not entirely from primary sources. Leave a note on my talkpage if you would like me to help with anything ... but, uh, I should warn you that I think "Ira" is the first name of a music industry titan, and that "Gold" is a kind of crayon, and have relatively little knowledge about some kind of financial mechanism, that these articles seem to be about, so I may not be much help with actually, per se, the article.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@75.108.94.227: I've put the article up for deletion per WP:PROD, if that gets removed, I'll consider other routes. The concept of the "Home storage IRA" seems dubious [11], and we wouldn't want to unduly promote it without reliable sources. I removed some WP:CIRCULAR references; none of the sources in the article describe the subject. Anyhow thanks again for the note reminding me about the article . —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Noah's wine

Hello, Godsy! I saw your recent edit to the talk page of Noah's wine at Talk:Noah's wine - [12] Two things:

1) I clicked on it, and nothing happened, and

2) I really don't think it is necessary. I actually think it just adds clutter to the page. I think it would look better without it. Corinne (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: When there are a lot of banners at the top of the page, it aids navigation. You can see how it is supposed to work at the top of my talk page. It won't function unless there are enough sections on the talk page to generate a table of contents. Feel free to remove it if you want.

Thanks for the copyedit by the way! I noticed your name change; I shortened my username a while back. It's nice when a shorter name isn't taken. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-Template [Non-]Warning

a discussion with an IP about editing user pages

See also: User talk:SMcCandlish § Re: Trolling If you violate civility policy at Wikipedia again, as you did with that IP you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vandalism is defined by WP as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Pointing out systemic flaws is the opposite of vandalism. 115.92.221.62 (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Your alteration of user page that isn't your own ([13] [14]) was not only a against the user page guideline, it was vandalism, and probably falls under the umbrella of a personal attack.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WPW

I have reversed your speedy tags on WikiProject Wikipedia templates created by Tortle (talk · contribs) because a general request for undeletion has been made - see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia. Please get Tortle's agreement before re-applying the tags. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You can delete them all, I copy and pasted the contwnt aleeady and the projects not coming back for a while thanks Tortle (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll ping RHaworth who may be able to speedy delete them per WP:G7 (assuming no one else has edited them much) or perhaps under a different criteria.

List of the pages remaining:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Awards
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Contests
• Template:WPW Userbox/Member
• Template:WPW Award/Barnstar
• Template:WPW Award/Design Barnstar

Two that I've already put up for MfD, that can perhaps be speedy deleted and procedurally closed:

• Template:WPW Userbox/Reviewer
• Template:WPW Userbox/Charter Member

That seems to be all of them.

Some of these pages need to be moved back to their proper titles through some technical deletions.

I'll also point out that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia/Members doesn't belong to what's currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Members, it belonged to the usurpation. Perhaps a good option would be to userfy it to tortle's user space for use if the wikiproject is ever fired back up under another name.

Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I already have copies of all of the deleted wikiproject in my sanboxes but if I userfy that page, will the old one restore itself automatically? Please ping me when you respond. Tortle (talk)

@Tortle: If you're referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia/Members, the first edit shows you creating it [15], so I'm fairly certain it didn't exist before that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I could have sworn there was a page for the previous wikiproject under the same name, I moved the old projet and all of its subpages and thats prob. why its showing as me creating a new page after it was gone. Tortle (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tortle: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Members had content which is now restored there, it just doesn't seem to have had an associated talk page, as no one had created one to post there.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now, I confused the members page with the members talk page. Ill tag it for deletion as the creator. I already have a copy in my userspace. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@RHaworth, Liz, and Tokyogirl79: Pinging a few admins who've been involved in this situation, who have the ability to clean up the things on that list above, if they have the time and wouldn't mind.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The list above seems to be taken care of, except the names of these pages, I believe.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (The Minor Barnstar)

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for working hard to delete my mistakes! Tortle (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tortle. If you decide to fire back up the WikiProject under a different name, need advice, help, or have a question in general, feel free post here on my talk page. I should be able to help or direct you to someone/somewhere that can. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do if I need it. Nice meeting you, Tortle (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:PIMP

See also: User talk:KTC § Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 22#Wikipedia:PIMP

Hi, I don't see any canvassing on the Signpost talk page you mentioned. It may well be that its use, and the resulting discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of it, led to more eyes on the existence of the redirect and the fact that it was at RFD. However, the point of such a WP: redirect is to act as a shortcut for people to use. The act of using it thus cannot be counted as inappropriate, nor can the subsequent discussion/argument. Additionally, it's the Signpost, which has a wide ranging audience (>3500 from talk page subscriptions/watchlist/transclusions) with widely divergent views. Not exactly somewhere to go for votestacking. -- KTC (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Gracious and on point: revisiting MOS:IDENTITY

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123 § Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals

Thank you for assuming good faith (correctly, I assure you) when I removed option 3. But I have a question: Was I correct in thinking that it is functionally equivalent to option 2, by which I mean that you intended that the wikieditors would do the exact same thing as in option 2. If I made a mistake I will fix it just as graciously as you responded in the poll thread this evening. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: I wrote option 3 a bit hastily earlier, and some of what I included in the option should have been in my opinion below, and the language should have been altered. Basically, the only thing functionally different would be the statement, The birth sex of the subject of an article should be made clear, especially if it is known and relevant, which isn't addressed by option 2. The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's best addressed separately as an addition to MOS:IDENTITY. One of our goals in developing the wording for these proposals was preventing them from having too many moving parts. This issue confuses people enough as it is. Best to deal with things one at a time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

3O - Monarchy of Pakistan titles listing status

See also: User talk:Frenchmalawi § WP:3O, and Talk:Pakistan/Archive 18 § No one ever had the title "King (or Queen) of Pakistan"

[16] Thanks for your help with my submission. Is the matter now listed for 3O? Sorry, the system is very complicated to understand so I thought I would ask. I like the way you presented the matter but didn't understand how any person would understand what the dispute was from your description of it. Hope it works! Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Frenchmalawi: Yes it is currently still listed, but there may be further issues. The disagreement should be "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page", which doesn't appear to be the case in this instance. Secondly, you seemed to express some mild conduct concerns on the part of the other user, which the third opinion system doesn't generally handle. As far as understanding what the dispute is: the goal is for whomever decides to take the third opinion to be able to draw that from the neutral description in the request forum, and the discussion that has already taken place on the talk page. All that aside, someone may give an opinion, or decide to delist it. Best Regards, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to say anything biased. It might be a conduct issue. He didn't discuss his edits although my edit summary had something like (See Talk Page) etc. on the edit summary. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the 3O worked, if that's what got Editors interested enough to contribute to the discussion. I'm not entirely sure. Even the Editor with whom I suppose I had a silent dispute participated in the discussion in the end. The outcome was satisfactory to all. Thanks for your help. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! (The Teamwork Barnstar)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I've learned a lot from you, despite our differences. Congrats on GSL's GA status!! Darknipples (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Thank you. I'm pleased the article has been improved through our efforts, that we reconciled our disagreements about the content of the article, and with the culmination of those things in the article passing the good article review. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Uw-coi

a participant was topic banned from the subject of discussion

The following discussion is closed. Moved to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace § Template:Uw-coi You removed ALL information regarding US laws. diff. That's indefensible. I noted that on the talk page. You didn't reply. Instead you reverted. That's indefensible edit warring too. Please learn the difference between a policy an an essay. --Elvey(t•c) 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC) @Elvey: I replied in the section above the one you started, in which I originally pinged you about my condensing of your addition.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC) No you didn't. You posted something, afterward. I wouldn't call it a reply. FOR THE THIRD TIME: Please address the concern. Why is ALL information regarding US laws unnecessary in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws over-detailed <sic> in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws unwieldy in your view? --Elvey(t•c) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC) @Elvey: I have replied there. And as a matter of fact: I attempted to initiate discussion on the matter [17] before you reverted initially, to which I received no reply.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Diff showing replies to any of these questions please: Why is ALL information regarding US laws unnecessary in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws over-detailed <sic> in your view? Why is ALL information regarding US laws unwieldy in your view?--Elvey(t•c) 20:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC) To keep this discussion in a centralized place, avoid useless repetition and reposting, and allow other interested editors to see the discussion and participate: Further comments should be made at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-coi. I will reply there. Comments made here about the subject at hand may be moved there or simply ousted. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC) What is being referred to in the collapse title is a six month (August 7, 2015 to February 7, 2016) topic ban of user Elvey from Conflict of Interest (COI) broadly construed. You may like to see this talk page message and this deletion log. Thanks for drawing my attention to the topic ban, which I didn't know about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC) See also: User talk:JamesBWatson#Regarding Template:Uw-coi-min

Your assistance with Kinematic (band)

Godsy Thanks for your edits - I am new to Wikipedia and am learning how to do things as I try and add all relevant information to the Kinematic page. I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia - especially Australian music pages. I understand your point about not linking to a YouTube video as I did for the Cavemen TV series. What does one do if the original network page of the show has long since disappeared? How else can you demonstrate that a particular song was played in an episode? I have a lot of other music info from the 90s in Melbourne that would expand on existing Wikipedia content but finding on-line sources from this time is very difficult. How does one get around this? Thanks! Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagpieDean (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@MagpieDean: What music was in a specific TV episode is not the easiest thing to source online, I didn't find anything in a quick attempt, but I'll look into it more and see if I can find anything or offer any advice on the matter later today (it's late my time). Welcome to Wikipedia editing by the way and let me offer a quick tip: When you post on a talk page or Wikipedia page that has open discussion (but never when editing articles) you should sign your posts in a specific manner by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to the end of your comment. This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@MagpieDean: To address something I overlooked earlier "I have a lot of other music info from the 90s in Melbourne that would expand on existing Wikipedia content but finding on-line sources from this time is very difficult": You can use sources that are not "on-line", such as books, newspapers, magazines, etc. WP:CITEHOW describes types of sources and how to cite them. They still have to be reliable though, WP:IRS goes into detail on that.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ballot paper

wp:nothere
Hi. This is your ballot paper for the Wikipedia leadership election, 2015. Please vote: Jimbo Wales (Tick here) User:Roestįk (Tick here) I will check your ballot paper shortly. Thanks. --Roestįk (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Negeryi report at WP:AN/3RR

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:Negeryi reported by User:Godsy and User:LjL (merged) (Result: ), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Negeryi: subtle vandalism?, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb

Hi, I've seen your ping and merged the reports, please have a peek and check if the result looks right. LjL (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: Looks good; the user has been block for another reason at the moment.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Levantino Spanish talk

Please we need with a possibly unbiased appreciation that you could help, to have a consensus or better yet, the better name seeing the two tesis or three of the name, or create a new one, we need you in the Talk:Levantino Spanish. thanks.--Vvven (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vvven: Gave it a quick glance. Being a bit busy as of late coupled with a fair degree of unfamiliarity with the subject led me not to comment at this time. I may or may not find the time to delve in and opine, though I'll keep it on my tentative to-do list. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i will appreciate your time. i chose you to be a person who meets merits to be as impartial as in addition your awards says much. thanks--Vvven (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Filippino Lippi 016.jpg

 Done

An alternative image was added to the nomination 3 days ago. Could you indicate which version(s) you support? Thanks, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons' greetings!

Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Godsy, Hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steel1943 , the same to you. Warmest Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Godsy!

Happy New Year!

Godsy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

🎊 Thanks Yamaguchi先生, the same to you. 🎊 Best Regards, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)