User talk:Godsy/Archive/2017

2016

2017

2018

List of Star Wars characters

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

@TAnthony: I did notice that you had been editing List of Star Wars characters and things "around" it, but I didn't notice that we'd been working against one another. I weighed the pros and cons of targeting them to anchors or sections, and sections came out slightly ahead, mainly for three reasons. Firstly, when an entry at the list is particularly large, part of it is visually cut off when being directed there from an {{r to anchor}} due to the name being centered (if that makes sense; e.g. if Ponda Baba targeted the anchor for that entry). The second was if the name is changed, e.g. as Lieutenant Connix was just changed to Kaydel Ko Connix, they still work (at least sometimes; especially for ones with unchanged surnames). Lastly, I also took a quick sampling of other lists, and it seems that targeting to sections is more common than anchors. However, I'm okay with targeting them to the anchors as well, if you think it's preferable. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I was redirecting to sections in this article until recently as well, so I'm fine with that for the reasons you give. I just did a little research and the anchors were only added to the list in August. I think the bigger problem is that there are so many missing or broken anchors in redirects to this article, mostly because of Legends and non-notable characters which were at some point removed. I also imagine there are many redirects best pointed to the source work (like a Legends novel) rather than one of the character lists. But fixing that is an ongoing task! Thanks for the chat.— TAnthony^Talk 15:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Once all the redirects with an entry at the list are targeted to the appropriate section and categorized, I plan to compile a list of characters that redirect there but don't have a mention/entry. I'll probably post that list at Talk:List of Star Wars characters, and I'll ping you as well. I've only gotten through up to List of Star Wars characters#D so far, so it may be quite a while. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:RfA

wp:nothere
Don't you think these 10 questions are good for the candidates' minds? 95.49.106.14 (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC) No, I think they are vandalism.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

To rob Peter to pay Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) In this sentence is the following phrase:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Corinne:

1) I'll go with "Legend has it that the phrase alludes to an event" as more concise. Wordsworth describes it as a fable, I took the liberty of changing that to legend.

2) Two of the sources use "appropriated", though I think one of them is in the public domain, I always try to put things in my own words to be safe. Is there something besides "appropriated" that you think is better than "annexed"?

3) Yes, it is my intention to indicate a time in the past (basically when this was coined, which is believed to be in the middle ages, but exactly when is uncertain). In the context of that paragraph the use of them today is irrelevant.

4) Ponzi's Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend shows up pretty early when searching for "to rob Peter to pay Paul" in in Google Books. That's probably what led my mind down that path, but that book only uses it offhand once. I'll remove that section. I'll look into notable examples of use in media.

0) Thanks for the in-depth review. I always find a second set of eyes to be helpful, especially when they are yours. My door is always open should you need assistance with anything.

— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

2)   took over

made use of

expropriated

usurped

3) I understand that because you intend the sentence to refer to a time when Middle English was spoken, you don't want to add a time phrase, but the sentence makes it seem as if the use of the two names together is only because of alliteration when, I believe, judging from the previous discussions, it was also because of theological and historical reasons. Would you consider a rewording of the sentence to something like this:

• One reason for the frequent use of the two names in expressions is the alliteration they form.

0) Thank you! I will definitely keep that in mind.

 – Corinne (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne:

2) I'll go with "expropriated".

3) Sure, "One reason for the frequent use of the two names in expressions is the alliteration they form.", sounds good.

0) Thanks again,

— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If you ever find me to be nitpicking, please let me know. I tend to focus on details, perhaps a bit too much.  – Corinne (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps illustrating what I just wrote, I saw your edit summary regarding removing the comma after i.e., I did a little searching and found (somewhere) a statement saying style guides disagree about the use of a comma after i.e. and e.g., but I also found this from the Chicago Manual of Style. It is a response to a question about the use of a semi-colon (or not) before i.e. or e.g., but the answer and the example sentences clearly show a comma after i.e. and e.g. Just sharing what I found; no need to change your edit.  – Corinne (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fatunder/sandbox

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

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

Signature

Further information: User talk:DASL51984 § Your signature

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

DYK for To rob Peter to pay Paul

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

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

CSS styling in templates

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

Speedies

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

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

MfD → AfD

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

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

Yeah, it'd only work between MfD and AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Dab redirect

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

@Gorthian: Thanks for the note. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Peter Van Hoesen!

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

@Aporter90: I added a hatnote to the Peter Van Hoesen article. Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. One such use (and how it is being used in this case) is when two subjects could reasonably exist at the same title, but one resides there (determined by which is the primary topic). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I figured that out after I made my comment! I went back and actually LOOKED at it. You know what they say about people asuming things ;) teaches me to double look at things before I comment! --Aporter90 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:Beyond My Ken

wp:noban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. See also: User talk:Beyond My Ken#RfC at Template talk:Nazism sidebar I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read. Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC) 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.

@Beyond My Ken: Would you consider rescinding the above request? I noticed User talk:Beyond My Ken#Silver (through my work at miscellany for deletion) and had a comment regarding the situation that you may have found helpful, but I refrained from making it due to your request. You also expressed appreciation for a different post I made there. I believe this post is the reason you made the above request. Frustrations were running high that day; the matter ended up being resolved peacefully. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, consider it withdrawn. No hard feelings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New Jersey Folklore Society

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

@Dr Aaij: Sure, no problem; I have just a quick moment to write this message right now, but I'll be able to do so this evening. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That is great. Thank you so much. Dr Aaij (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dr Aaij and Michaelgav09:  Done. It can be viewed at Talk:New Jersey Folklore Society#Review 2. I hope it is not too technical. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nazism sidebar

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Reply

See also: User talk:Temp87 § Welcome!

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

Template:Offline

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

---

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

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

@Doc James: You mistake consensus to "not delete the template" for consensus to "use it as [you like]". And though I removed the template from the over twenty articles you just boldly added it to, and apprised you that such changes were a large number of similar edits that are controversial or disputed, you restored them anyhow. To partially quote a participant from the discussion you linked, "I've noticed that WP:MED seems to think it owns these articles (this is not the first time they've tried something not-only-out-of-the-box but also not in-keeping with general Wikipedia practices)--it does not." Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine members resisted appropriately consulting the community about a similar template, fighting tooth and nail to keep it in articles, despite lacking consensus to use it in the mainspace (even after explicitly being told consensus was needed here). I plan to start a discussion regarding the template at the village pump this evening (unless one has already began there). Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping me and the rest of the crew at WPMED when you have it started. We are already discussing the concerns here.

Many of use at WPMED view "access to Wikipedia content" as one of our key goals. This is likely partly because we realize that health outcomes vary in different regions of the world in part because of poor access to quality health care information for many. In fact ensuring such access is part of the Sustainable Development Goals

We discuss medicine / health care related issues at WT:MED. If the wider community is interested in such discussions they should watch list the page and join them. Seeing as I have worked extensively on every article that the link was added to I hardly see WP:FAITACCOMPLI as applying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

When outside of the normal guidelines regarding external links and/or the manual of style concerning links, the wider community should not be expected to watchlist the page, rather WP:MED should be expected to consult them (especially when faced with controversy). Just because you've extensively edited such articles doesn't mean you own them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree there is no WP:OWN. However there is consensus for the templates inclusion. Wikipedia is a "do-ocracy". Not everything that is done needs your stamp of approval. Some details of style are left to those who write the articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

the wider community should not be expected to watchlist the page...the medical editing community should be appraised of all/anything that is important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think what this boils down to is: you believe there "is consensus for the templates inclusion", and I do not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Likely. If you wish to clarify this feel free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• your position is not correct, I therefore support Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions

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

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

It's not breaking the main mfd page now, thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA?

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

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

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

@Dweller: I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so until at least a year has passed since the first one. I occasionally re-read parts of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy to keep some of the concerns fresh in my mind, so I should have a good answer to that question when the time comes. Thanks for stopping by. Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Admirable. If you'd like, please drop me a line long before you're ready, because I'd be honoured to nominate you, especially if you're doing as you say here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

I extend the same to any talk-page stalkers, too, including for themselves! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Paine Ellsworth came to mind when you asked, but I didn't want to put them on the spot. However, it seems they may be open to the idea. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for thinking about me, Godsy! I did say "almost". Sorry to see my rationale did not move you to support. Yours is quite the meaningful !vote in any discussion, which almost made me go "neutral"; however, I do think this mop candy is a better choice than most, even better than a tiny handful of existant admins.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, if you're close to or ready to go for RfA and are interested in a nomination from me, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am honored that you have faith in me, Dweller! To be honest, I've realized that I don't really need the tools to do what I like to do here. On those rare occasions when having the tools would be a bit more convenient, I'm always able to find an admin to help me. And frankly, though I'd very much like to be an admin, the process would have to change significantly before I would go a second round. Thank you beyond words for considering me!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My mind control abilities are failing badly today. See above, below and on Gamaliel's user talk. <sigh> OK, but if you change your mind or know someone who might be a good candidate, drop me a line pls --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Not sure how I missed this, even though I recently edited on this page. But, in regards to Paine Ellsworth's comment above, gotta say, after my own RFA which I decided to withdraw after it not being active for even a day, I realized that except for the ability to delete and restore pages, I can really do everything I want to do in Wikipedia without the need for the administrative toolset. And those RFAs ... one wrong step, and they can turn into a nightmare. I'm honestly not sure at this time if I ever want to go through that again. I'd rather keep being a productive editor than feel the need to take a break after a downward spiraling RFA. But, either way ... Godsy, if you ran again, I'd support you ... rather than going back-and-forth between neutral and support about 10 times. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Thanks Steel. You and Paine were the two who came to mind when Dweller asked me if I knew anyone who would make a good administrator. The main reason I would run again is for the same part of the toolset you mention (especially being able to move pages more simply and cleanly by deleting a blocking redirect per G6 then moving the page leaving a redirect, as opposed to using round-robin three page moves without leaving a redirect.) Just being able to view deleted pages would also be convenient. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing

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

Got it in mind?

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

I have lost the heart to oppose bar a good reason to do so after going through an RfA myself, otherwise I would be in that column. If one does enough of anything, some of it will be wrong. This candidate has not done enough of anything for anyone to find much wrong with it. We do not just need an increase in the number of administrators, we need active administrators. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If he does 2 or 3 useful, clueful admin actions a week, and doesn't stomp around upsetting people, is that not a net positive? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

When an editor becomes particularly skilled in an area or areas (e.g. participation at a deletion venue or venues, vandalism reversion and reporting, patrolling new pages, etc.), and giving them the mop will improve their work there, we should give it to them, provided their behavior in other areas and in general is reasonable. I just don't think that the candidate has risen to that level yet. I'm afraid that the most I can offer is to refrain from moving to the oppose column, which I had considered. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not doing very well today, am I Gamaliel? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm almost persuaded to go RfA-2 just to give you a much-deserved lift, Dweller! (And again, I said "almost" ;>). When situations like this seem bleak, I remind myself of what it takes to hit the "magic 300" in baseball: all you have to do is miss the ball 7 of 10 times. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you

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

@Cinderella157: No problem, it seemed that you put a lot of thought into your comment. I enjoy seeing fresh blood at redirects for discussion, and if you find participating there enjoyable, I hope to see you around more often as the venue can always use more participation. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

When I see things within my expertise and when I think I can add to the discussion, I will add my comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You may see that I have created a page, Edged and bladed weapons, per previous discussion and have asked for redirects, thinking WP:bold was the way to go given that the discussion appears to have stagnated. I am waiting for a response to have the redirects created ATM.[2] On another note, I see a "tag" on your page re: third opinion. I value a "third opinion" and would like both to have such a tag added to my page and to participate in such processes. I believe that third opinions are a valuable tool. I have looked at your user page to try to copy this but I can't see how to do it. Could you pls add this to my user page. Any links appropriate and advice would be appreciated. TIA Cinderella157 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I'm preoccupied right now due to the holiday, but I'll happily take a in-depth look at it Monday Tuesday. Best Regards & Happy Easter, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: After reading through it several times and glancing at the sources: the main thing that I think would improve the article is moving it to edge weapon or edged weapon. Regardless if such weapons are a blade (e.g. a sword) or a point weapon (e.g. a spear or even a hook) they have a sharp edge. The melee weapons this discludes is true point weapons (e.g. like some sais) and bashing weapons (e.g. staves and bats). It would include some arrows. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

@Cinderella157: Pointed bayonets slipped my mind (particularly those on some models of the mosin nagant). Perhaps sharp weapon would be a good title, especially if a source defining the term could be found; the antonym being blunt weapon. I don't think many weapons would fall into both categories. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the other options are better. The article makes this point about such bayonets etc. See close of redirects discussion. I am travelling to a major centre over the next week and will see if I can get to a library. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for When in Rome, do as the Romans do

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

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

Renaming club logos

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

@Kj1595: It is possible. As a matter of principle, it is best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist. However, you uploaded 68/71 of the files, so you could make the requests per WP:FNC#1 (i.e. "uploader request"). In my view, it seems unnecessary, as it would be a lot of work and create a lot of file redirects etc. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Kj1595 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kj1595: I noticed that you re-requested the images be renamed. The requests should be made explicitly per WP:FNC#1 where it is applicable; "Using the more standard lowercase characters for the words 'club logo'" is not a reason to rename the files and will likely be declined (especially because WP:FMNN exists). Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WeRe Bank

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

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

Stanley B. Mulaik listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikispecies redirect

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

Use of contribution histories

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

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

The dress

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

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

Deletions from userspace

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

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

@Newimpartial: I am a bit short on time right now due to the holiday weekend, but I should be able to respond and offer you some advice later this evening. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Newimpartial AN/I

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

Unfound allegations of harassment

The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving "any type of draft content into the mainspace". This would be broadly interpreted as moving articles that were created by anyone, including themselves, from Draft:, User: or any other space, to main space. Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. Per standard terms, this ban may be appealed in 6 months and every 6 months thereafter that it is not successful. ¶ There is no consensus to implement an interaction ban. That said, Godsy is strongly advised to consider the advice given him in this discussion and on his talk page.

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Required AN/I notice As required, I'm advising you that I've started a thread at ANi concerning your behavior. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Block You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. This relates to your persistent following of Legacypac; see further explanation. Please remember that doing more of this will result in blocks of increasing length. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Godsy/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: @Nyttend: Obviously I disagree that my actions constitute harassment. To quote part of your further explanation "The bit paraphrased from WP:HOUND is for editors whose work actively needs to be cleaned up, e.g. the same person's consistently mis-tagging pages for speedy deletion, adding copyright infringements, just simply writing in poor English, etc." Pages that Legacypac moves from the userspace of other users to the mainspace are in poor states (e.g. clearly not in compliance with the manual of style, often have de-activated categories, etc.) and they make no effort to remedy that the majority of the time. I notice other editors cleaning up the pages up as well. "a sense reinforced by the fact that a bunch of these are new creations that Godsy can't possibly have found any other way" is simply untrue, I can describe to you easy methods of easily finding the vast majority if not all of the pages without using their contribution history. The user I'm accused of harrasing has led campaigns against me before, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System - which is one of the things that led to WP:UP/RFC2016, where the community came down hard against their positions, and the resulting community-wide consensus is something that they still do not wish to adhere to. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: Technical decline only, block has expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. That might be reasonable the first time, but when you're told that such is unwelcome and you keep it up, there can be no excuse: you know that it's taken as unpleasant, and you know that the fixes are minor, but you intentionally keep it up. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @Nyttend: "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." (WP:HOUND) I've done nothing outside that. They're complaining about it because they do not wish to comply with WP:UP/RFC2016 and they know I stand up for community consensus and against out of process deletions. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @Nyttend: Will you do me the courtesy of closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? with this block as the remedy? I [largely] plan to take a break for at least few days, then most likely proceed with a request for arbitration regarding Legacypac's behavior after I've compiled the necessary information. Though I disagree that my actions are inappropriate, I'm willing to agree to refrain from cleaning up articles that Legacypac shoves into the mainspace from the userspace of others until that concludes. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC) I don't think it would be appropriate to close the discussion before it concludes; some have called for an interaction ban against you, so interrupting that discussion would be inappropriate until it passes, fails, or withers away. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Reviewing this editor's contributions yourself was not a good move considering your history with them and is most likely going to be perceived as being antagonistic. However, this is a user who's moving stale drafts into the mainspace without bringing them up to par. Your argument that there was actually a valid content reason for following their edits does not seem entirely implausible. Regardless of your intentions, this is obviously a long-term, deep running dispute that will not be resolved via a block or an unblock request. I'd be inclined to unblock, with the agreement of Nyttend, on the condition that you abide by a self-imposed interaction ban with Legacy until you request arbitration proceedings, which are clearly needed. While it's hard to call this block illegitimate, I do recognize this as part of a larger dispute and that if steps are taken to address it I'd support an unblock. If you just want to ride out the last few hours, that's fine too. Swarm ♠ 05:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC) @Swarm: After much consideration: I plan to seek an alternative form of dipsute resolution instead of making a request for arbitration at this time. I was leaning heavily that way, and I made up my mind after this comment by Softlavender. I plan to open a request for comment seeking clarification of the harassment policy regarding this situation at WT:Harassment. I will not edit any page Legacypac has moved or does move into the mainspace until the aforementioned request for comment is formally closed. I will not interact with them bar removing anything they post on this talk page and possibly replying to comments they may happen to make directly regarding me in the aforementioned request for comment until the aforementioned request for comment is formally closed. I plan to abide by whatever the community consensus is determined to be in the aforementioned request for comment. If that sounds okay, I formally agree to everything I have just typed in return for an unblock. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I don't think seeking a consensus on whether you're violating the harassment policy (which makes it sound like you're seeking a mandate to continue the behavior that got you blocked and that some view as "stalking") sounds like ideal DR at all. The idea is for you to just stop trying to enforce your views and instead focus on any specific underlying problems in a formal DR setting, and aside from that, to leave Legacy alone. I was attempting to deescalate this from a WP:Harassment issue to a content dispute which could be resolved if wrongfully-percieved bad faith behavior was replaced with proper, good faith dispute resolution. However if you intend to stand behind your behavior until a formal consensus at WT:HARASSMENT requires you to do otherwise, good luck with that, but it's not the level of good faith I'd need to see demonstrated in order to overturn Nyttend's decision. Swarm ♠ 07:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC) I'd rather stand behind my own actions which I believe to be appropriate, as apposed to taking on the double burden of doing that and attempting to demonstrate that others actions are inappropriate. I also like that the community at large gets to decide in a request for comment as opposed to an elected committee in a request for arbitration. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC) A boisterous false accusation of harassment led to this hasty innapropriate block. Wikipedia:Harassment states: "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." and vaguely alludes to "overriding reason(s)" (WP:HOUND) – this clearly applies to this situation; "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." (WP:AOHA) – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox, etc. may show the accuser engaging in that; "Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking for harassment – I was never warned, except for complaints by the accuser. If an administrator had warned me and stated that I would be blocked the next time the behavior they believed to be inappropriate occurred, I would have ceased and sought relief from the community.; "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving 'harassment' a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user." and "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions." (WP:HA#NOT) – again, this clearly applies to this situation. No diffs have been provided that show me being tendentiousness, disruptive, making personal attacks, or being uncivil (as one user once said regarding my behaviour in a related dispute "Godsy was quite civil in all of the dispute that I've read. At worst he sounded frustrated, but he certainly wasn't rude.") because I haven't done any of those things. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @Nyttend: To quote you "Please remember that doing more of this will result in blocks of increasing length." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? is likely to be archived without being closed and rather clearly shows no consensus; the community did not find that my correcting related problems on multiple articles and fixing of unambigous errors introduced into the mainspace by another user consitutes harrassment/wikihounding as you did. As I've pondered your hasty block over the last two weeks, it keeps growing on me how ludacris and abhorent it is that I was blocked (for the first time ever) for unambiguously improving articles per a policy that explicitly protects such actions. Your "further explanation" is rooted in what I believe to be a misinterpretation of that policy and speculation. The harrassment policy explicitly protects individuals engaging in the actions you blocked me for, i.e. "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." and mentions "with good cause" and "overriding reason" WP:HOUND; "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving 'harassment' a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user." and "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions." WP:HA#NOT. Therefore, I presume I do not have to fear another unilateral block from you if I choose to continue correcting related problems on multiple articles and fixing of unambigous errors regardless of how I discover them? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I wish to note here, that I consider Nyttend's block for "persistent following of Legacypac" to be completely unjustified. User:Legacypac is doing overall a great job with processing gems and crap, but he is rough and clumsy, and following his trail and fixing things is also an important job. The worst of Legacypac's complaint I can find is that Godsy performs edits including near-null edits on nearly everypage that Legacypac recently edited. There may be cause for complaint here if there is a perception that Godsy is doing this to be overt in his shadowing, the two solutions being (1) ask Godsy to stick to important edits in tidying after Legacypac, and (2) advise Legacypac that what he is doing is valued and the followup by others reflects the importance and Godsy has no authority over Legacypac so try not to feel intimidated. For me, knowing that someone is following Legacypac's fairly serious and ambitious processing is a comfort. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I'd like to second that. Nyttend's block of Godsy was hasty and inappropriate and I'm relieved that others feel the same way. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC) People who stalk other users are creating a hostile environment for others, and they need to be given an enforced stop if they won't stop themselves. Moreover, if they conveniently start a dispute with the blocking admin so as to make him involved, they're gaming the system to make enforcement of our policies less convenient. I will request further sanctions much longer than one day, both for stalking and for gaming the system, should you resume stalking Legacypac. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC) I know you're speaking in the hypothetical, but if you're specifically referring to Godsy, the ANI thread seemed clear to me that's not the case. Drop the stick Nyttend. You've already made an egregious error in this case, you don't need to continue down that road. -- Tavix (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC) This following edit summary, i.e. "What do you want me to do about it? More of this, and I'll request a block for harassment of me.", further reinforces to me that you do not understand the harassment policy. Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, ... editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. My inquiries regarding your block of me does not constitute harassment or gaming the system in any way, shape, or form. The community did not find my actions to constitute "stalking"; I have not "stalked" anyone. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC) @Nyttend: "I will request further sanctions much longer than one day ... should you resume" [correcting related problems on multiple articles and fixing of unambigous errors] (characterizing it from my point of view). I take that to mean that you will not unilaterally block me again for such actions, but rather you will take your complaint to the community, should I resume. Correct? I need an explicit answer, because I would like to get back to unambiguously improving the encyclopedia, but I am not willing to risk another block from you for doing so. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Godsy, I recommend that you back off from Nyttend. Resume constructive editing. Where it comes to Legacypac, I encourage you to review his activities, but only make important edits in his immediate wake. The perception that you were being over-overt in tracking him, by making trivial or null edits, is serious. It could be defended as "inadvertent harassment" prior to the matter being raised. I believe it, I can believe that you have a strong impulse to fix things on seeing them, but you need to not crowd him. Commenting at MfD is definitely OK. I miss your clerking there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Proposed solution This ANi is getting way out of hand. It's not helping either of us. Can I suggest we agree to stear clear of each other where possible but not a formal T-ban because it's too hard to enforce. If you agree to that, we both post to ANi something like: Request closure of the tread with no further action based on our mutual agreement. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I'm curious, why would Godsy agree to this proposal? There appears to be a clear consensus to topic ban you. Sure, Godsy shoot himself in the foot a little with the forum shopping, but he more than likely will walk (or limp) out of this free of any restrictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC) thanks for your comment but I'm attempting to directly deal with Godsy in good faith. There are a whole lot of lies and hystaria going on at ANi which is bad for both of us. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @Legacypac: I don't think the community would agree to such a request for closure at this point. I had much more typed in reply, but I'll leave it at that. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC) @TheGracefulSlick: Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Does article cleanup and seeking restorations per WP:UP/RFC2016 constitute harassment seemed like a good idea; I disagreed with an administrator's interpretation of a policy which they cited to block me, what better place to consult the community regarding said policy than the talk page of the policy itself? However, I've accepted the closure. I agree with parts of two editors statements there "I also see an aspect of this discussion as Godsy asking in good faith what the community really thinks about this, and it's not an unreasonable question." and "I can see how some think this could be seen as forum shopping. Personally, I'm not sure it is". Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Since the ANI thread has been dragging on and on, I must say I find Legacypac's suggestion above not a bad idea at all and I would like to urge Godsy to reconsider. It would be quite helpful if the two of you could agree on this. It would stop Godsy from being accused of wiki hounding (right or wrong) and there are plenty of other editors who can keep an eye on Legacypac's draft moves (should that be neccessary). This fire could well burn both of you (now or in the future) so joining forces and agreeing to put it out seems like a very sensible thing to do. Kind regards, Yintan  14:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC) @Yintan: I appreciate the advice, however: Legacypac's stated goal in the an/i discussion you mention where they made what I believe to be false allegations of harassment against me which caused me to receive a hasty what I believe to be inappropriate block (the first block I have ever received) was "Surely Godsy can find some other pool of articles to work on then those in my logs. One solution might be to restrict [them] from editing any article I've edited within the last week." which is similar to "stear[ing] clear of each other where possible". I certainly don't plan to reward them for doing that by giving in to basically what they wanted. I refute the allegations of harassment here. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I know you do, I've read the thread. That's not the point. The point is that you'll both come out looking bad, no matter how this ends, unless you sort it out amongst yourselves. But okay, I respect your decision. Cheers, Yintan  19:38, 7 June 2017 (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.

Cleanup of pages listed at MfD

Minor, pointless edits: Would you mind explaining why you've been making a series of minor -- sometimes essentially invisible -- changes to pages on the verge of deletion? Such as:

• two separate single space changes to User:Therese Dvir/sandbox
• This addition of three blank lines at Draft:Top 100 Airlines in the World 2016.
• This fomatting change at Draft:Five Secrets of Family Business.

What particularly caught my eye was this minor edit of bolding the name of Draft:Newton's 7th Law, followed two minutes later by a vote at MFD to delete. In other words, you've made a pointlessly minor edit you WANT to be deleted.

This is the equivalent of taking junked cars and reattaching their radio antennas just before they go into the crusher. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: I commonly cleanup pages nominated at miscellany for deletion. Firstly: if a page is deleted, the unambiguous improvements do no harm; if a page is kept, the unambiguous improvements are beneficial. Secondly, cleanup may aid others who wish to evaluate the content of the page (the changes to this page are an example of more substantial cleanup). A minor point of correction to your second bullet point: I removed three blank lines, I did not add them. Lastly, I do not find any of the format errors that I corrected which you listed above to be "essentially invisible". In fact, I find them glaring, but that's probably because I'm used to noticing and correcting them. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Gnomes are not obnoxious. Don't fiddle with Legacypac's talk page posts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why anyone would find indentation improvements disagreeable. It improves the accessibility of our website (see MOS:LISTGAP) and makes discussions easier to read in general. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Trust me. Many people find gnoming of signed posts disagreeable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, see the first paragraph of WP:TPOC, which, as I'm sure you know, is part of one of our behavioral guideline. I haven't looked at the current situation (whatever SmokeyJoe is talking about), but this sounds like what they're talking about. Also, the MOS generally applies to just articles, not talk pages. — Gestrid (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: A quick behavioral guideline quotation and description of the situation: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels" (italics added by me) WP:TPOC. I fixed indentation in a couple miscellany for deletion discussions, which is specifically allowed, and is something I commonly do there. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

RFU § Pfenning, BizWest, Cue Ball, Budhoo, Omallur ...

see Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification

The following discussion is closed. See also: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion § Pfenning, BizWest, Cue Ball, Budhoo, Omallur, NextGen, Fagan, and Chase Wikilawyering: Looking for instances to rigorously apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines where they don't matter is probably not an ideal way to implement one;s time. It just creates more work for everyone, especially admins, and some of us still remember that your RfA failed. We have a large backlog at NPP that needs a lot of help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @Kudpung: If you disagree with restoring drafts moved to the mainspace from the userspace by users other than their authors which are then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which would not apply in the userspace, then you disagree with the community consensus established at WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4). The reasons why such a practice is important are clearly described in the rationales of those who supported it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree with invoking guidelinesand RfCs simply for the sake of it and creating more work for other users and admins. Indeed, I actually find it disruptive. Are you an admin? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC) It wasn't "simply for the sake of it". As you mentioned my unsuccessful request for adminship right above, you obviously know the answer to your question. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Then can you explain the utility of this: Godsy moved page Government Higher Secondary School Omallur to User:Adwaithhs/Government Higher Secondary School Omallur without leaving a redirect: Sending it back again to user space to a user who hasn't been back to Wikipedia for four years isn't really inviting a lot of other users to find it and perhaps expand it. Normally this is what we fought to have the Draft namespace made for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC) @Kudpung: That is what the community decided should happen at WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4). Also, Graeme Bartlett (an administrator) stated "Move them to draft or userspace if you wish." — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Maybe in my old age I'm going doolally, but common sense tells me that the Draft namespace would be the obvious answer in this particular case. Graeme Bartlett is a highly experienced admin for whom I have the highest respect, but he wasn't expected to check and look when that user last edited.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC) It does not matter when Adwaithhs last edited. You may move User:Adwaithhs/Government Higher Secondary School Omallur to Draft:Government Higher Secondary School Omallur if you so desire without any objection from me per WP:STALEDRAFT (i.e. "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace ... by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing.") I'd suggest leaving the redirect intact in case Adwaithhs ever returns as it does no harm. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I expect page movers to show some wisdom when moving pages to userspace. Moving to an inactive user does not make sense as no one will work on it there, but to your own userspace or draft makes more sense. For some of those pages I restored they could make a reasonable article, so they don't need to be moved, eg the one about the high school. Many more people would come across it as an article and improve it, but they would not even notice it as a draft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC) You may move it to Government Higher Secondary School Omallur if you think it is suitable for the mainspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC) The RFC said that the pages should be returned to userspace instead of deleted in those circumstances, but it did not say what to do about pages already deleted. So it is unclear they should be moved back. Certainly prods can be challenged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I think it was implied; I'm certainly open to asking the community for clarification, though I think it is unnecessary. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Automation isn't always our friend, I'll send a note in the correct direction by hand. Thanks for letting me know. --joe decker^talk 16:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Decker: No problem. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to clarification...

About this edit... thanks. I must have not checked the previous RfC. I just wandered off while trying to clarify the one-liner. That's all. :) --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: No worries. A letter followed by a number leads the mind to think of the criteria for speedy deletion. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe's reply to a removed post

I am pretty sure that any instances of Legacypac and Godsy giving each other "warnings" or "reminders" is completely undesirable. If one feels the other is crossing lines, I suggesting seeking input from a passingly involved admin. User:MSGJ for example. I would not use ANI, and I think neither should post on the talk page of the other. I think all interactions need dousing in cold water. In MfDs, where both should not be denied the right to contribute, stick to your own !vote threads and don't directly address the other person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I was in the middle of removing the post which you replied to when you replied. I let your reply remain because you're always welcome here. What Legacypac brought here was already discussed at User talk:Dennis Brown#Question related to a recent discussion you closed. Their "warning" was for my factual, civil edit summary in response to an explicit personal attack they made against me. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

When displayed on a white background, the first part of your signature (your user name) has sufficiently low contrast that I, at least, must look 2-3 times to be sure who has signed. I don't know if this is within the official contrast standards or not, but I would request that you at least consider changing to a somewhat darker color for better contrast. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Yo Godsy and DESiegel: just to clarify per MOS:CONTRAST, [4] the signature currently shows non-compliance with each Web Content Accessibility Guideline. You're wanting 4.50 as a minimum for contrast ratio, reaching at least AA compliance, and preferably AAA. Sorry about that G.! Hope this helps. Take care, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first partgives a cotrast ratio of 1.4 while the latter part gives a contrast ratio of 2.2. I'm afraid to state both fail WCAG by a huge margin.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, except the middle, which must pass it by a huge margin! :p :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for letting me know. I wish this had been pointed out to me sooner; I believe I've been using these colors since very early 2015, meaning it is already well plastered throughout discussions here. I got it up to an AA rating (i.e. Godsy ^(TALK_CONT)) but decided not to save the changes as I didn't care for the appearance. Certainly, if people are having trouble seeing it (and due to accessibility concerns), I'll consider changing it. I'm quite busy the next few days, then I'll largely be away during July, so it will probably have to wait until August when I have time to mess with it and find something I like. Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I also find that "Godsy" hurts my eyes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. It's Godawful. :) Newimpartial (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Add me to the list of those hoping you will change it sooner rather than later — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy: Well, it's now August :) — fortunavelut luna 09:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

AN/I notification

resolution

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Comment This may be TOOSOON, but I wanted to comment on the series of events culminating in the IBAN proposal. Your recent long comment to that thread confirmed my perception that you feel that being right justifies you in doing anything that is not "against the rules" regardless of the advice or comments of others. I hope you will realize, as you reflect on this in the future, that this feeling is not your friend, and that it influences you to make bad decisions in concepts such as Wikipedia (and possibly elsewhere). It is a lesson that I have had to learn repeatedly, so I am not implying that it will be easy to do. Many of those participating in the IBAN discussion like you, and respect and appreciate the work you do, but neither you nor Legacy have done a very good job of acknowledging your errors of judgement over time or changing your behaviour so as to avoid the resumption of conflict. The proposal isn't a judgment on either of you individually, but on a corrosive and distracting interaction between the two of you. I hope you can see that, and especially as the IBAN is designed to enable both of you to continue to participate on XfD, I hope you will continue to make your valued contribution there. Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC) AN/I result Hello Godsy, following a community discussion at WP:ANI, a 2-way interaction ban between yourself and User:Legacypac is now in place. Please read the closure notes. Violations of this ban may be enforced with blocks. Regards, — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC) @Xaosflux: May I still freely edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (where I filed a request for arbitration regarding the editor I am now banned from interacting with earlier today) and my page in preparation for if that is accepted? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I will add a note, just a moment. — xaosflux Talk 04:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC) This is covered under the exception allowing Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum.. ArbCom is legitimate DR and an appropriate forum. — xaosflux Talk 04:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC) See also: User talk:xaosflux § Objection - ADMINACCT @Xaosflux: May I cast an !vote on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban. I participated in the beginning discussion and cast an !vote on the first proposal. I guess the larger question is, does the interaction ban prevent me casting an !vote on proposals put forth by the user I'm banned from interacting with? Sorry for the bother, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC) You may make a !vote on that, so long as you do not address Legacypac directly, or argue the weight of his proposal. Commentary following your !vote should be only about Taku and the action/restrictions proposed in general. (Consider an extension of the XFD provisions). — xaosflux Talk 01:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Please note, this was for the instance you referred to above only. In general, avoidance of meta-discussions with each other should continue to be avoided. — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC) RFAR Your request for arbitration has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC) AN notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is So unhappy to post this. Legacypac (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC) AN result The AN discussion has been closed, and the IBAN has been extended to a full IBAN. In other words, the exemptions for "one vote on the other's XFD" has been rescinded. The one-year counter for appeals has also been reset. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask, either here or on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC) @Primefac: The community clearly did not demonstrate a consensus for that. My understanding of the banning policy is that you do not have the unilateral authority to impose such a sanction on me, see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Authority to ban. It is also in direct violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Modifications by administrators. If you will not voluntarily rescind your edict, which I am formally requesting that you do at this time, I'll be forced to take this to the arbitration committee. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC) You really love the wikilawyering, don't you. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC) So take it, Godsy. And remember that once there, everything else you do will be dragged through the sieve. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC) I was initially writting this in support of the extension of the iban but decided it was mostly personal stuff so inappropriate there. If you survive this with just an extension of the iban (or the unlikely event you survive without extension), let this be a clear warning for you, cut this shit out now or say good bye to wikipedia. As I've said, I already support a community ban on you, and I'm fairly sure it's not going to be much more for most others to feel the same. I didn't participate in the RfA, but am extremely thankful that you're not an admin, based solely on what I've seen about your interactions with LegacyPac. Which getting back the first point (I made when supporting the extension on AN), you've basically turned me from someone who was minorly supportive of you, to someone who wants to see you gone, in a few short months and I didn't even look that much into the dispute since I didn't have to. And I still have no love for LegacyPac, as I said I'm actually digusted that you claim to be able to see problems with LegacyPac's edits but then instead of letting us deal with them, waste our time with this shit all the time. Whatever LegacyPac's problems, it's clear you're much more of a net negative at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC) BTW, you said "the community has shown an inability to handle this matter". If you mean we should have banned you from en.wikipedia last time, or even before that, then perhaps you're right. But we don't need to kick it to arbcom for that, it's clear the community is coming around to banning you quite quickly as I myself have done. If you believe that you were hard done by the community, well that's your right. But as long as we are able to come to a decision, and we seemingly are increasingly able to, it's incumbent on you to convince arbcom (or us) that you were treated unfairly which is quite difficult and from what I understand, you've already failed once. We're not going to kick something to arbcom when we've decided how to handle it just because you feel our decisions have been wrong and you've said nothing to convince us otherwise (and more likely then we'll just make a different decision anyway). As for whatever issues LegacyPac's issues may or may not have, well once you've been banned perhaps we'll actually have time to deal with them in some way. At the moment as I've said we're always wasting a lot of time because of your actions. You could of course help us out by voluntarily stopping your waste of our time, but it seems increasingly clear you're not going to. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC) AN discussion closure notification I imagine you're already watching, but to ensure you're aware, the existing IBAN between yourself and Legacypac is replaced with A two-way Interaction Ban is imposed between User:Godsy and User:Legacypac, subject to the standard exceptions. Neither may comment or edit in any way on or about XFD's started by the other, in any venue, other than in circumstances covered by Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions to limited bans. Both may !vote or comment on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's comments. This ban shall be indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN by either party after 12 months. The 12 month period should be considered as commencing at the timestamp of this closure. This ban applies to any and all alternative accounts that may be operated by either party. Any breach of this ban by either party can be addressed without discussion by any uninvolved administrator with any sanction up to and including indefinite blocking. I note the above thread; if you don't feel that I have the authority to issue this closure, feel free to take your concerns to the Arbitration Committee. I strongly advise against it; the community consensus in this discussion has led to what I'd consider a remarkably lenient sanction and Arbcom is likely to take a much dimmer view of your conduct. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ysdog

Is this an account you created? Just wanted to check in case someone is trying to impersonate you. Please let me know as soon as you can. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Yes it is. Would you mind granting it the confirmed and extended confirmed user rights for me? Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore that email

Wanted to disclose this publicly. I just now accidentally sent you an email meant for another user. I clicked off of another page both you and that other user had commented on, but didn't notice that it was your page and not theirs. I clicked "Email this user" and went ahead and wrote and sent the email, but only noticed after it sent that the name of the user to whom I had sent it was "Godsy". I apologize for this mistake, and it would probably be best for everyone if you just ignored it and we all just forgot this happened. Best regards, Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Godsy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

spirits
... you were recipient no. 1528 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth:  Done — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Godsy, and Happy Holidays to you!  Paine  08:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)