You do realize there was already a link to it, right? On the line,"Donald Drumpf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)", the XfD button links to the RfD. pbp15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Afro engineering, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
@BD2412: My apologies, I should have piped it as you did in your correction. I'm not in the habit of linking to disambiguation pages as it shouldn't be done in article prose where I edit more often. It seemed logical at the time when I noticed tour was the page name. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)20:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussions with a user about moving content from a userspace other…
discussions with a user about moving content from a userspace other than your own to the mainspace
St. John's Fire District and other moves
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This move of a draft back to userspace was inappropriate [1] Getting references for this non-controversial info on a public utility service is trivially easy. Per WP:STALEDRAFT "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace;". Since there is nothing controversial on the page your move back to draft is close to a delete and is in violation of [2]. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac: The page isn't suitable for the mainspace until it has those references, so your move there was inappropriate per the guideline you mentioned. WP:BURDEN (part of the WP:V policy which you also mention) applies to your move and not my reversion, because WP:V applies to additions in the mainspace.—Godsy(TALKCONT)19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
extended quote
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
And yes I object to you removing the whole darn article because you are too lazy to tag it for sources in totally non-controversial info. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Legacypac: When the policy states "restore" it means if one adds content to an article (within the article namespace) and another removes it, the burden is on the one that adds it to provide a reliable source. You're are misusing and misinterpreting that policy. It's only applicable to your move because it placed content into the mainspace. My reversion of your move is actually enforcing "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" in a way, as you need to reference it before moving it back.
After you failed to have me sanctioned, you seem to have embarked on a mission to reverse a number of my moves to mainspace. That is disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The moves are improper, and as such, their reversions are not inappropriate. I was very clear in my move summaries: "the article lacks references of any kind, failing part of the core content policies, and as such it fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the article namespace."—Godsy(TALKCONT)20:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Your gaming continues with moving a stub on a very notable novel not once but twice, conflicting me out as I was adding references. [4] See [[Claire of the Sea Light
]] for another example of your stupid behavior. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I follow the policies and guidelines and you have yet to provide any evidence that I've ever gamed the system. I am not and have not gamed the system. The references should be added before the page move, because until they are present in the article, the article is not suitable for the mainspace. Claire of the Sea Light is another example of you moving an unsuitable unreferenced page to the mainspace, hence leading someone to nominate it for deletion. That is a waste of the community's time that can be traced back to you. "for another example of your stupid behavior" any further comments you make here that don't strictly adhere to CIVILITY and NOPERSONALATTACKS will be promptly removed and remain unanswered.—Godsy(TALKCONT)21:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Only allowing 28 minutes and 6 minutes for someone to respond to ref needed tags is way too short. These are award winning novels - how the heck are your actions improving the encyclopedia? There are hundreds of thousands of unreferenced articles in mainspace. If we start moving them all to draft space instead of adding references would hou support that? Legacypac (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
"Only allowing 28 minutes and 6 minutes for someone to respond to ref needed tags is way too short. These are award winning novels - how the heck are your actions improving the encyclopedia?" - an irrelevant and already answered comment and question per my comment above. If you move that particular content (i.e. The Waiting Years) to the draft namespace, I would have no objections, especially as the user is blocked indefinitely.—Godsy(TALKCONT)21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe you could try adding the references you think it needs - per policy and best practice. There is no policy that supports your move back into an indef banned userspace and your actions are WP:NOTHERE. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Special:log/Godsy over 10 page moves reverted preemptively as they probably would have been deleted shortly as the content clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace as is required.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reversion of moves
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You appear to have reversed 4 of my moves. I've warned you before to not stalk my edits but you persist. Reverse the moves or will seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Assertion articles [moved from a userspace not your own] need sources
The following discussion is closed.
On a few occasions you have moved articles on notable topic from mainspace into userspace based on the current lack of sources even though the info is not remotely controversial. You only do this on pages I move as far as I can see. If you apply your same logic to 216,997 articles in Category:All_articles_lacking_sources and move them all into userspace you might find many users object to your actions. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Go read the WP:TPOC and stop changing the meaning of the section heading I started. It does not matter who's userspace is involved as no one owns their userspace or the stuff they drop there. You refuse to discuss, just bull headedly making moves into other users spaces. BRD includes the D - Discuss - but you don't discuss. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The burden is on you to propose the moves in the proper forum, or more applicable to these cases, bring the content up to a suitable level after your moves have been reverted. You're the one seeking a change (i.e. a move) and being bold.—Godsy(TALKCONT)08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac: "or more applicable to these cases, bring the content up to a suitable level after your moves have been reverted [before potentially moving the page again]" I suppose the de facto place to propose a move from the userspace of another user would be the talk page of the content or the main talk page of the user (but that wouldn't garner enough or any attention). Nonetheless, I would have gladly discussed any of the reversions with you at either of those locations. By looking at Special:log/Legacypac, I'd give a very roughly estimate that at least 20 or more pages you have moved to the mainspace this year have been deleted there, and several others probably would have befallen same fate had they not been reverted preemptively. If a page is moved to the mainspace, then subsequently deleted, it shows it was not suitable for the mainspace. Taking all of that into account, I'd personally suggest you submit any content you think is suitable to AfC, as content isn't accepted there unless it is reasonably suitable for the mainspace.—Godsy(TALKCONT)08:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Aaaloco/Solitaire & Mahjong, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: That's the second time that I noticed you had removed posts by a "166" IP editor from that thread. Perhaps I'm uninformed on the issue, but how do you know that is a blocked editor? My apologies if this comes off as a bit blunt. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The contrib history of WP:ANI, will show that several editors have removed posts from several 166xxx IPs. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I tried to provide the following source but several editors seem intent on declaring my hero dead. Jan 4th 2016 is the date this source was published :
[1]
Because I just added a comment thanking you at WP:RFD for clearing it up, but in adding that comment (and that is just adding the comment to thank you) it still trails in cyan and small. Maybe it is ust Twinkle don't understand the various nested tags you have in your sig. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably Twinkle then, not sorting out the various nested tags in your sigs. At each ocasion all I did was hit the reply button, I didn't go around doing fancy fonts or anything deliberately to try it. If the third time it happens, I let you know, but something is screwing up and it ain't thee and it ain't me. (I am typing blind, by the way, so please excuse my errors. I am not blind but expect to be fairly shortly, so I touchtype well and colours are a nuisance. WP:USABILITY I think. Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Niteshift36 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
This whole thing has become much more adversarial than it should be. I've added your source to the article, as an actual inline source. I have not, however, changed the section titles. I think the most commonly used titles are the most appropriate and see no reason to change that. Your thoughts? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait.... THREE DAYS AGO, I removed your unnecessary links to my name. We talked since then, reached some compromise.....and then you come to my page, THREE DAYS LATER and threaten me? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: I didn't notice that you had altered my comments again. I don't actively monitor old comments because I don't expect that anyone will alter them.—Godsy(TALKCONT)21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't alter them after we reached some compromise. It was BEFORE. Then, instead of assuming some good faith, not only do you restore the pointless notifiers, but you come to my page and threaten me after the fact? Way to undo and cooperative progress. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy: let me ask you... why do you feel that you need to use them when I'm clearly aware? There's no requirement to use them. When I've already replied, they've clearly served the purpose, which was to ensure I saw the reply. So why the need to battle to keep a pointless template in place? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: Firstly: it is a common courtesy and good practice that does no harm. Watchlist items can be easily overlooked, especially if there are a lot of pages on a watchlist. Secondly: because otherwise it appears as if I typed your username in plaintext at the beginning of my comment, which looks stupid, as I have already stated on your talk page.—Godsy(TALKCONT)00:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy:: Since I was responding, I clearly wasn't missing it. I explained that. Then you storm back in and re-add it to responses that were already replied to, which clearly eliminates reason 1. How about if I just remove my name completely? Then you won't have to worry how it looks. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: My comments should remain in original form per the relevant guideline (even by my hand generally). I don't want my comments edited, they're reasonable and appropriate. There's no need to change them, and they shouldn't be edited by anyone other then me (except in limited circumstances none of which are applicable here).—Godsy(TALKCONT)00:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy:. Yeah, you actually can edit your own, especially when the meaning isn't changed. That guideline does not prohibit you from changing it. You really seem to like linking stuff, especially when it's not needed. And when you continue doing it, knowing that they're not needed and irritating, then you're being a bit pointy yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: I will not edit my comments at Talk:Johann Fust Community Library in the manner you would prefer. I will not refrain from using {{reply to}} templates on my own talkpage per the editnotice. If it bothers you, you aren't required to post here in most cases. However, I am willing to stop pinging you upon reply in the future at other forums, if you make that request to me. Though, if I forget or choose to because of a special circumstance, you still shouldn't edit my comments. I am not being "pointy", that is, I'm not making edits with which I do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point" (e.g. using {{reply to}} templates where I normally wouldn't or abundantly to make a point, such as Special:Diff/719319777, or using them to ping a user on their own talk page where they are already automatically notified).—Godsy(TALKCONT)01:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy:: If you're not using the template one other talk pages (and I don't need them on any talk page, not just the library talk page), then I won't need to discuss it with you here. So you can stop using them any time now. And yes, using them when you know it's not needed and irritating, then you're being pointy. Again, if you just stop the completely unneeded use of them, I'll have no reason to discuss it further. Nor will I need to use them as often as you're using them. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: I still plan to use them as I do now when replying to other users. I disagree with your characterization. I'll take the above statement as a request from you to no longer be pinged elsewhere, though you didn't explicitly make one. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)01:38, 9 May 2016 (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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
User:Godsy/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Godsy/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
As a highly biased editor in favor of keeping things in userspace, who is very actively stalking my edits and have three times tried to get me sanctioned at ANi, you should not be closing MfDs I start. [5]. Kindly reverse the close. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac: Only replying to the request to revert my close, not the other accusations. I'm always willing to discuss a close. Otherwise, the above post would have been promptly removed, because it displays behavior that won't be tolerated on my talk page (which I've warned Legacypac about on multiple occasions):
The close is rooted in consensus (consensus that there is "no consensus") and neutrally worded. Your concerns seem rooted in your perception that I have a bias against you and about userspace drafts, rather than a problem with the close itself. I will not reverse my close on that basis. You may challenge the close at the proper forum if you desire to and feel it is appropriate (see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). That is all I have to say on the matter.—Godsy(TALKCONT)03:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Page mover granted
Hello, Godsy. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Thanks Coffee. On a side note: Sorry about the slight misunderstanding we had when you were in the process of closing the discussion (If you don't remember: I reverted a couple of changes you made to pages related to this right before the discussion was closed as I did not realize you were closing the discussion). Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)04:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no worries! I only used such strong language in my reverts since I was in full ENTJ mode while trying to go through the complicated process of implementing a policy. Definitely don't take that personally. :-) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy: - You are right. I didn't notice this before. The subcategories must be consistent with the parent. - üser:Altenmann >t06:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Altenmann:At the time of all those were established, the name of the republic would have been "Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic" (per the lead of that article). That being said, perhaps your move should be un-reverted, as it was appropriate for consistency. Alteratively, all those category titles can be moved to shave the "h" off, or a discussion can be started about it at CFD.—Godsy(TALKCONT)08:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Altenmann: I reinstated the move that you requested be reversed and did some other small alterations. It all seems to be in order now. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)09:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
While there may be a very slight parallel history problem, as this page and its redirects were move and merged many times - I think this is the best way to clean it up at this time - the original author is still intact and it helps to get the "recent" activity (all log moves) put in one place in case anyone tries to figure out what happened 10 years from now when they want to rename it again! The "undo" of that merge at this point will make the logs even worse - if you strongly object to this result, let me know and we can work out a new solution. — xaosfluxTalk04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: No strong objections, what's done is done. Thanks for the reply and your reasonable attitude which seems to be a consistent trait of yours. Warmest Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)04:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. I documented this at WP:PMVR#rr if it helps. Of course, these additional redirects to be created could also use good judgment, but a move without redirect suppression would produce them anyway. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W.(talk ·ctb)20:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your ongoing reassessment of start/stub articles. Editors seem to have been very liberal in their classifications...
If you'd like, you can post a list of reassessments here that I can take care of them semi-automatically. If not, carry on. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)13:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I'm going through the batch "by hand" (rather slowly due to the nature of the work and time constraints that currently effect the time I have to contribute), so I'm already at the page. As I'm viewing every one (except craters), it's as quick to edit them as it would be to compile a list. About 1 to 4 out of every 30 or so need re-assessment (i.e. they are unquestionably a stub). If I think of a better manner, or notice a pattern of a particular stub category that seems to consistently be in need of "re-stubbing", I'll let you know. Maybe re-assessing the articles to stub class when they're really short would be a better road to take in the future, as opposed to mass de-stubbing them. That being said, it would be nice if editors would assess them correctly in the first place. Thanks for your message and the offer. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT)18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Pageswap script for convenience
Hi Godsy! Thought I'd let you know that I've written a script here (js) that semi-automates round-robin moves for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)
@Andy M. Wang: I'd suggest moving them to titles without the slashes (e.g. "Template:/Userbox/Benidorm" → "Template:Userbox Benidorm"), and leaving a notification on the creators talk page. Given the obscure format of what would then be the former titles, I'd suggest replacing all occurrences of them with the new titles (i.e. deprecate them), but retaining the redirects (unless you feel comfortable applying and would like to suppress them per G6). The userboxes could also be userfied as outlined at Wikipedia:Userfication#Template namespace content, but that is more controversial.— Godsy (TALKCONT)00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Rs from cat
Hi Godsy,
Thanks for the links at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. I can understand the rationale to have them, and can understand or at least accept that there are technical issues; I thought as much because to have over 47,000 deliberately empty categories seemed a bit strange. I was wondering why we have to (seemingly) have a pseudo-category for every single soft R, i.e. not one for each cat of R, but every single soft R has its own category, that is rather weird. What makes it worse is that these categories don't seem to show up in the drop-down links (on Mozlla Firefox add-in) so they are essentially some kind of WP:ORPHAN. Trew to the rescue, gives them some attention.
Perhaps we could add that link you gave, to the top of the category itself (i.e. add the target of WP:CATRED at the top?) Perhaps it already is and I missed it: I was fiddling around with lots of Rs and Cats and I didn't investigate this thoroughly. However I did not like the reply from another user that "This is not the reference desk. If you have no ideas, maybe you should go there?". That sounded rather patronising to me and not in the best WP:AGF. For one thing, the reference desk is (or should be) dealing with queries about articles in user space, not the fiddle-faddle of things in editor space. If you go to a reference desk in a library (if you can find a reference desk, or for that matter even a library, these days) then they don't start telling you about bookbinding, neither should the reference desk here start telling you about things in editor space.
The basic distinction I have, not mine another editor's but a damned good one some years ago, is not the namespace split of Portal:, WP:, Template:, Category: and so on but what is in reader space and what is in editor space. Category: is in reader space, Portal: is in reader space (a failed attempt to introduce Yet Another Way To Search, in my opinion, but the active ones are all right as clubs of enthusiastic editors; we already had many before portals such as WikiProjects like WP:MILHIST), Template: is in editor space, WP: is in editor space. That is the better distinction, even if Churchill said "A British man cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it" and we do that here, it is a better rule of thumb than what namespace something is in technically. Readers don't care. Our mission is to get people to where they want to go. We have redirects, categories, portals, search engines, drop-down tools and what not to get people where they want to go. Our gnomework is to make sure they get there. That is why I think redirects are more important than most do, because I think that is the primary way people get to where they want to go (if we get it right) or not (if we get it wrong). It's them that appear in the search tools that list mainspace, not Categories or Portals or whatnot. Redirects are (largely) in reader space whereas Categories are really not much in reader space (have you ever clicked on a category at the botom of an article to find other things in that category?) and the categorisation of categories is most definitely in editor space. Valuable though that is, R's are the front line. It's a pity so few care about them, really. Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Si Trew: No problem. Sorry for the delayed response. I read your message yesterday, but didn't have time to respond until now. I went ahead and added an explanation of these redirects to Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. I fully agree with the sentiment, which you implied, that the readers are our first priority. I was pleased to see you return to editing recently, and I look forward to continued collaboration with you in the future. Warmest Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)11:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Luke de paul: I did not delete your sandbox, BDD did based on the consensus at the deletion discussion. What I did do was make a comment in the deletion discussion. I will note that it looks like Davey2010, the user who nominated the page for deletion, did not leave a notification on your talk page.— Godsy (TALKCONT)13:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro engineering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Godsy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.
PS: Please note however, that the effort is to get all reviewers ultimately patrolling from the New Pages Feed and using the Page Curation tool (which is in the process of being significantly updated) in order to ensure that all reviewers are applying the same criteria and the same basic approach to new users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the bottom of the "Cooking plantain" talk page, it describes an effort to differentiate between plantains (AAB group) and cooking bananas (ABB group). But it looks like the term always excludes dessert bananas. --Bod (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Godsy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Awarded for taking a photograph of the flag carried by Voltaire P. Twombly at the Battle of Fort Donelson. Thanks a lot for taking this picture. The lack of a photograph of the flag was a major omission from the article that had been bothering me for some time. I am incredibly happy that there is now a Creative Commons image of the flag that can be added to make the article more complete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I basically came here to say the same. Some of these opposes are worth learning from, as is the case at even successful RfAs, but many of them are just absurd. I normally encourage candidates to withdraw when they're down, but in your case, I think you have an actual chance at rebounding. There are a limited supply of editors with nonsensical standards on the project, after all, and many who will support on principle after reading some of the oppose section. ~ Rob13Talk14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I definitely agree, Rob. As long as Godsy ends up in the "discretionary range", I'd be shocked if the 'crat(s) fail to promote him with the sheer quantity of ridiculous opposes. --Tavix(talk)15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. My screen is jumping due to some software issues, so I clicked save instead of preview and messed it up initially. Anyway, it's done now. If you get the tools I'll give you any advice you need, and would suggest you get in touch with me whenever you're about to do something you haven't done before or which may be contentious - such as blocking someone or deleting a page. SilkTork✔Tea time18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
So I'm one of those that oppose you, but I want you to know that your RfA is the craziest I've ever seen. You've answered 20 questions so far and still maintained your aplomb. Regardless of how this shakes out, know that your nomination brought out the fury in our community unlike any other in recent memory. There may have been RfA's with more votes or with more mean things said but never in this volume. You have certainly earned some respect from me. In the future please chime in with your opinion anytime there are questions floated about reforming RfA. Chris Troutman (talk)04:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Although I have opposed (which in my case only ever means "not right now; maybe a little bit later you'll be fine"), I agree that some of the oppose votes are stupid. Frankly I'd rather be in a minority of 5 reasonable bits of constructive criticism than amongst the silly season, and I actually now hope this RfA squeaks through with a pass just to teach them a lesson (I don't mind being proven wrong, I wonder who does?) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think the RfA is going to pass. What you do with that information is up to you, although I should note that some editors are certain to unfairly hold a lack of withdrawal against you in your inevitable successful run in the future. Keep your head up, keep working as you have, and come back in 8–12 months (with a nomination - smh) for another chance. For some reason, !voters at RfA these days oppose even for things you did in your early days on the project the first time around, as if new editors never make mistakes. Sometimes it takes a "dry run" RfA just to get that out of their system. Next time, they tend to focus on the period between RFA #1 and RFA #2 (mostly), so consider it a fresh start in that sense. ~ Rob13Talk19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No harm in letting it run, although it seems we both underestimated the "supply of editors with nonsensical standards" (in Rob's words) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
At 66%, the RfA just crossed into the bureaucratic "discretionary zone". I would very much like to see this go into 'crat chat, just to evaluate the breadth of opinions presented. But I echo Rob's sentiment in case it isn't successful. Thank you for all that you do. Mz7 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Curiously enough, it appears that the wave of support that pushed Godsy's RfA over 65% came after I posted my detailed analysis of the oppose votes. No one has, as of yet, supported per my analysis; perhaps it is considered too dangerous (just kidding ... I think) to support per someone who advocates for such strangeideas. Nonetheless, I do hope that I somehow contributed to turning the tide. I really hope this RfA can stay in the discretionary zone and survive a crat chat, because I very badly want to see a clear message sent concerning ludicrous opposes. Biblio (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I think in general, it's not unusual to see a burst of activity over the weekend, when contributors have more time to look over a candidate's contributions and formulate their own stance. Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh come on now – I removed the ethnic slurs – "one wouldn't use "engineer" or "rigger" to refer to someone; they are used as adjectives (e.g. a "rigged car") and verbs (e.g. "engineer the air conditioner")." A "car rigger" rigs cars; an "air-conditioner engineer" engineers air conditioners. This sort of hair-splitting may be one reason for much of the opposition to your RFA. Sandstein has the right idea: Why not briefly mention the term on both pages? Don't try to write a book about the "topic". You could have been bolder in just fixing this... now the discussion has turned into a circus and you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. Good admins generally don't start fires like this in the first place, and on occasions when they inadvertently do, they are more skilled at controlling the fire before it gets out of control. wbm1058 (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I describe my view better at the RfC – All the terms at list of ethnic slurs are derogatory nouns referring to members of certain groups. In the case of the terms in question here, they aren't used in that manner (i.e. as nouns; e.g. to refer to subjects as an "afro engineer" or "nigger rig[ger]" is incorrect or at least obscure), they are used as adjectives (e.g. a "nigger rigged car"; to describe the way something was done; i.e. a "shoddily repaired car") and verbs (e.g. to "afro engineer the air conditioner"; to describe the act of doing something; i.e. to "shoddily repair the air conditioner"). Several other editors agree.— Godsy (TALKCONT)17:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GXXFT • C15:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll get adminship but hope you try again as soon as possible on the off-chance it doesn't work out this time. LavaBaron (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the RfA will be going to 'crat chat. If it does, I will post my rationale on the crat chat talk page as to why many of opposing editors have rationales that fail policy requirements and should therefore be discounted. Biblio (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Also for what it's worth, I regret the way that turned out, and I want to say that you conducted yourself admirably throughout. I believe we just lost a capable admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
Well, that was pretty grueling, wasn't it? Regardless of what the final outcome is, I admire your resilience. Not once did you lose your cool, you treated everyone with respect, and you remain committed to improving Wikipedia. I was skeptical about some of the oppose rationales, but I thought others were pretty thoughtful. I hope you continue your positive work with those thoughts in mind. Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Precious
spirits
Thank you for Adam's ale and Noah's wine, for redirects, including their discussions, and dispute resolution, for file moves and cleaning up afterwards, for "This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Take comfort in the fact that you were supported by many well-respected editors and that many of those in opposition had kind words to say, as well as suggestions on how you might find success at RfA in the future. –xenotalk18:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You handled a miserable situation with commendable grace. If it's any consolation, it's only a couple of tools. Rest up, have fun and all the best, Miniapolis23:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to echo the above words. The diplomacy, maturity, and temperament you demonstrated in your RFA is a textbook example of how we should behave as experienced editors and leaders. I'm sorry that your RFA wasn't successful, and I completely understand the frustration and stress that you may be feeling. Move on from this and walk forward, learn from the legitimate feedback you received, and I promise that you'll excel :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)01:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries, many admins didn't get through their first RfA, myself included (and my first was also a self-nom!). Usually when someone doesn't make it in their first RfA there are points to discuss on how they can improve, in your case that's not possible because you already have all the qualities in place to become an admin. Don't be down heartened by the points brought forward by your opposers - it is not uncommon for minor points to be blown out of proportion, or to be misinterpreted, in a RfA. Many RfAs have gone screaming in the wrong direction after a few negative comments are made. If there's anything to work on, perhaps it is that when you disagree with someone on Wikipedia, reach out to them a little more. You communicate effectively, and keep communication on a professional, neutral level, which is as it should be. However, there is no harm in being a little more human when disagreeing with someone, and making it clear that you see things from their point of view - especially if you have clashed with them in the past. Offer people courtesies; so if, for example, you are about to re-open a discussion, then discuss the matter with the person who originally opened the discussion before you re-open it. Let them know what you are thinking, and why you feel the discussion should be re-opened. It is possible to argue and disagree with people, and not to alienate them. Keep well. SilkTork✔Tea time02:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been wondering for a while whether RfA has headed toward a place where a competent editor needs to "fail" an RfA just to be "rid" of the mistakes they made early on, since editors look back so far into an editor's history for reasons to oppose. I think this is the first clear-cut instance of that. I don't know that you really have to make all that many changes. If you keep doing what you're doing and come back in 9 months to a year, you'll be seen as having made "improvement", even though you had already improved by the time you ran. In other words, shake off the really old stuff. Focus on the few comments about more recent actions and work on those. Strive to be that little extra bit diplomatic, as it's good practice to avoid being in front of the proverbial firing squad once you become an admin. You're well on your way. Best of luck in the future. Oh, and for Christ's sake, get a nominator next time. ~ Rob13Talk03:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry about your RfA, but you should be encouraged. Many current admins didn't pass their first RfA. Just take a look at this. Not only that, but your RfA closed as No consensus instead of Oppose. Work on the problems that you can fix that were brought up during the RfA and the 'crat chat and, in a few months six or (preferably) more months, find one or two well-known and well-liked admins who are willing to nominate you. While I personally have no problem with a self-nom, others may see it as somewhat prideful. Finding someone else to nominate you is much better than self-nominating (or even self-co-nominating) yourself. I look forward to supporting you in your next RfA. —Gestrid (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Just as a note, given the RfA environment, it shouldn't be in a few months. There's a sizable contingent who would oppose on principle if an RfA were submitted that soon after one closed as no consensus. A bit silly, in my opinion, but that quick of a re-nomination would result in a SNOW close. 9-12 months is optimal. 6 months is the absolute minimum, and it would need to be a hell of a 6 months to make it possible. ~ Rob13Talk05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I am personally and incredibly disappointed you were not promoted and very much hope you make a second attempt in the shortest time period possible. LavaBaron (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
the time for discussion of this nature has passed (especially here) as the rfa and 'crat chat have concluded
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Here's a cat. Sorry the RfA didn't work out. I voted against you, but it was because of minor, somewhat trivial reasons. The vote was extremely close, and you were a well-liked candidate by many. Good luck!
User:UNSC Luke 1021 why would you vote against a candidate for "somewhat trivial reasons?" Your vote was absolutely ridiculous and probably wasn't even considered by the closing bureaucrats. Dropping a kitten here on this user page is also pretty bad form. I hope this type of behavior isn't the norm from you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
It was tough, what all you had to go through, in the Rfa and in the crat chat. I applaud your composed responses throughout these two sessions. I know you might not be feeling up to it right now, but there's a very important positive side to this Rfa. And that is that this first Rfa, forms a basis for the community to create a cathartic marker of their feedback to you. You might perhaps already know this, but do please allow me to reiterate, that this marker means that the next time you come up for the Rfa (6 months, a year, whenever), the community would significantly focus on your intermediate edits between this Rfa and your next; confirming whether their feedback has been taken into context. So yes, I believe this is a positive way to look at this Rfa and a good pad to understand the community's feedback. My appreciation again for your demeanor throughout the process. Thanks. Lourdes03:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I second that. Don't be disappointed (or worse). Keep going and try again at some point. Cheers, Yintan12:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add my voice to SmokeyJoe's asking you to stop relisting MfDs. The MfD system works differently from AfDs, no doubt for historical reasons, and those who patrol it are used to looking down at the "tail" for outstanding items. Relisting an MfD, as you have found, confuses the bot so that you have to add an extra timestamp; and that in turn confuses the script which helps automate the work of closing, so that your relisted MfDs have to be closed manually. It isn't worth it; please stop. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The guideline says that it may be appropriate for the closer to relist. My view is that for MfD, a relatively low-traffic process where the infrastructure makes relisting clumsy, it is not usually appropriate. My objection is somewhat softened by finding that not every relisted MfD breaks the closing script, but I still think it fairly pointless. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
In the past, MfD had significant backlogs with a great amount of older discussions being listed en masse at the lower part of the page that nobody had commented on or that had only limited commentary. As such, relisting served to promote more hopeful commentary. I notice that MfD is not plagued with such long backlogs lately. North America100003:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
...not plagued... Largely, I like to think, because I am systematically trying to review every nomination, with a view to a giving a respected support to deletion, which the closers accept with the nominator to call a "consensus to delete", or to present a robust case against deletion including pointing out the obvious WP:ATDs.. Despite trying not to, I sometimes show exasperation with complete waste-of-time nominations, of which there were many earlier this year (also note that waste-of-time nominations inflate the backlog and bury other nominations). Pointless relisting is definitely disruptive of this systematic review. Now, indeed, relisting may be a good idea, but I think there is clear sign of it being a good idea, and that sign is a meaningful relisting comment, such as a comment commenting on an disputed point that few mention, or otherwise attempts to focus an unfocused discussion, or highlights a later-made point that earlier participants might not have considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk16:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Lauren Jauregui's page
Hello, that page of Lauren Jauregui, i ask for a permission to the admin to delete all of this, and approves me, and i deleted. Please don't delete the page of Lauren Maxgoldman12334 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Resolved
Moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests
