@SmokeyJoe: I am well aware of that. However, prior to making this courtesy reply to you, I had made two edits this year. Should I ever return to regularly contributing, I will consider investing the time necessary to find a more accessible color that I find likable enough. Best regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You ignored me twice, and gave a convoluted “no” The third time. You ignored several others. Minimum contrast is an accessibility issue. Please stop with the offensive pale green. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You are making far more than two edits per year. Your signature font colour contravenes Web content accessibility standards, having insufficient contrast with the background. I'm telling you it is annoying, unreadable, weirdly pseudo-painful to focus on. Yes, it is an attractively interesting colour, unprintable, a fascinatingly impossible colour to achieve by reflection in the real world from white light, but it is not a proper font colour. Others have asked you too. You are not the only one, see User_talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2018/March#Signature_colour, and note his much improved choice of signature colour. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
From an uninvolved/admin perspective, I would kindly ask that you consider acquiescing to SmokeyJoe's request; ACCESS is increasingly becoming an important consideration across Wikipedia, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't soon an official policy. It would be silly to be brought to ANI or other noticeboard for something as trivial as a signature colour. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: What you do on your own talk page (e.g. this) is your prerogative to some extent, but edits like these [1][2][3][4][5] are inappropriate. Please refrain from any edits to my comments outside what is explicitly allowed per WP:TPOC. Even if you believe such edits are defensible under it, it states Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. I would also appreciate if you would revert any of your re-colorations of my comments that I missed (excluding the one on your talkpage). — Godsy (TALKCONT)02:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Your username font colour is unambiguously failing minimum contrast. It is annoying on the page, nearly impossible for me to read, and somehow pseudo painful. At the moment, you are the only user I see persisting with this behaviour. Why? If you would change MediumSpringGreen to Green, the colour balance looks just as good, contrast-compliance is met, and it looks a whole lot better to me. Would you please make the change to a minimum contrast compliant signature? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Unless you have changed your username, I do not believe you have. That aside, since your username has spaces between it, you should include the spaces in your signature to make it easier for people to ping you etc. @SmokeyJoe: Continuing to edit my comments like this [6][7] is unacceptable. @Primefac: Though we've had our disagreements in the past, I value your semi-uninvolved perspective. However, being an administrator (as you pointed out) does not give your opinion any extra weight. @Serial Number 54129, Primefac, and SmokeyJoe: As I told SmokeyJoe above: Should I ever return to regularly contributing, I will consider investing the time necessary to find a more accessible color that I find likable enough. I've strengthened the statement. — Godsy (TALKCONT)15:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Indeed, you should see my regular editing numbers , former Fortune, Empress of the World. I really liked your old username (but perhaps you had good reason to change it). Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)15:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Re your remarks in the discussion about the soft redirects to Wikidata, what are pseudo-categories, how do you create them, and can you actually have them in your watchlist? Largoplazo (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
I understand and it's totally, totally fine. No, really, not sarcasm. It's fine. I do however now expect you to synchronize the list to SoundCloud rap#List of rappers in the SoundCloud rap genre until the AfD is closed. The quality of edits on the latter did seem to be higher than the edits made to List of SoundCloud rappers so keep that in mind when you synchronize them.
If you don't want that job (I wouldn't) I understand that too. But in that case a new solution should be found and I think you should propose one. I am willing to change my message in the AfD to link to an old version if that would be part of your solution. Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:A soft redirect is a replacement of usual or "hard" redirects and is used where the destination is a Wikimedia sister project (See Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects § Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project), another language Wikimedia site (e.g. User:Foreign), or in rare cases another website (e.g. meatball: targets). They may also be used for local targets in some cases (e.g. WP:AN/K) (from WP:Soft redirect). This is not one of those cases; there are currently no occurrences of {{soft redirect}} in the mainspace. That, in addition to the much more pressing reasons I provide here (i.e. partly that converting it to a soft redirect may confuse others as it did me), provide a strong argument against using a soft redirect in this case. I would recommend implementing a hard redirect right now, but that is also likely to cause confusion. If the page up for deletion becomes a redirect, the way the discussion seems to be trending at the moment (if not, the deleted history can always be retrieved anyways by an administrator if needed), anyone who desires can access it and synchronize the list. Constant synchronization is unnecessary, and I think the chance for confusion outweighs the benefit of implementing a soft redirect. So, I apologize if you do not find this agreeable, but I do not plan to update the list nor do I think a new solution is necessary (i.e. I think the status quo is fine). Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)22:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The technique I used may have been wrong and I am sorry for that. I am also sorry for any caused confusion. But that does not mean simply reverting it solves everything, as you do seem to realize as well. Both lists get edited meaning people are just wasting time looking up if an entry is relevant when that entry was already researched by someone else and removed from the other list. This makes the status quo not acceptable. The whole reason I didn't implement a hard redirect right away was exactly that: confusion, even more confusion than a soft redirect. I was hoping you would have an actual solution one way or another, now I will implement one myself. Hopefully no reverting this time.. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comment on Portal talk:Contents/Portals#Survey about how the proposed new layout was less cohesive and a tad gawdy. I appreciate that you prefer the old layout, but I wanted to ask - is this because the icons are too big? It would be feasible to make the icons smaller for example. They are the same actual pictures as were there before after all. JLJ001 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@JLJ001: Size is one factor (i.e. gawdy). Another is that the layout of the new icons is neither centered nor symmetrical (to expound upon my reasoning a bit) and they are not on the blue background (i.e. not cohesive). Best regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)02:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.
I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.
Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.
If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.
Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist08:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
Thank you for part one of the move title, there's one thing you didn't notice - and the fact that I didn't notice yesterday. While I didn't notice there was a stop missing after the I, the word 'Title' is still mis-spelled which you may not notice. Again, thanks. Iggy (Swan) 17:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I reverted you here because CheckUsers and clerks tend to be particular about editing the archives. Anyway, thanks for the kind words. He's actually pretty easy to spot if you know what to look for. Normally I don't bother filing an SPI on him anymore, but as this was behavioral plus a possible CU result, I thought it best to document it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thought I'd let you know that there appear to be a number of copyright issues in the text. I do think the topic could make a good article, and I saw your "promising draft", so I wanted to make sure you saw the decline. I don't see anything besides copyright that would prevent approval--the topic is notable, I don't see an equivalent article already in mainspace, etc. There's definitely cleanup to be done, but nothing AfC should block for. Cheers, --joe deckertalk18:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you're turning the #redirect string at the start of redirects into upper case. Is there any reason for that, other than the fact that this is the capitalisation used in the example at H:R? I imagine you must be aware that the lowercase variant is at least as common (if not more) is widespread (though apparently not as common as the uppercase one); changing between the two variants might appear like a straighforward case of WP:COSMETICBOT, with the addtional side effect that that edit will mostly likely be the only edit to the redirect after its creation, and so would technically prevent the move of the target over it (of course, most won't need to be moved, but enough will, and regardless of the desirability of individual moves, the effect would be make a very large number of moves inaccessible to the vast majority of editors). – Uanfala (talk)00:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Lot of people like to use full version of the shortcut. You can add but replacing and removing an earlier shortcut is not something I would encourage. I have re-added it back for obvious reasons, Hope you agree. Thanks. --DBigXray20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
For completing over 250 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol and keep up the good work, Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope. "Eom" means "end of message". :) You asked how P1 speedy applied, and I answered G6. I answered here, because the thread was closed/archived. — The Transhumanist08:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this ping. Just wanted to note that for some reason no notification was created (I just noticed because it's still on my watchlist). It looks like it was a fresh signature, so maybe there's a bug whereby it doesn't notify if above a level 2 section heading? Hmmmm. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you declined my requests to rename the media files but is it appropriate for a user to upload a public domain image with their username in it? I have not seen images named in that fashion on here. The credit is still given to the author with the image's description page. The user's name in the actual file name seems excessive even if it's a public domain image. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It's been some time since your last one. And you've done quite a bit to contribute since then. Would you be interested in running for it again? Warmly, Lourdes06:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for recently tagging one of my drafts as promising. For the past year or so I've been working on a series of Lists of prehistoric life by location using data extracted from a professionally curated scientific database. Because I've compiled lists for nearly every country in the world, there are too many of them to polish up for mainspace quickly enough to meet the autodeletion deadlines. I was wondering if you could help me out and tag my lists of prehistoric life drafts so they don't get deleted. Thanks. Abyssal (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Godsy!! Can you perhaps review these two articles Mangamu Saw Mills and Chifubu Secondary School. They have been here long enough since I created them but no one has reviewed them as yet. I am of a belief that we shouldn't have to have a backlog of unreviewed articles on English Wikipedia but I don't have a don't have the right to review as such. Also do let me know if any will need fixing so I can address the issues as soon as possible. Regards SkillsM674 (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
What was the rationale for this edit? I had spoken to that editor in the IRC help channel and advised them to create a draft; especially for new and inexperienced editors, having a draft messagebox with a "Submit your draft for a review" button on the page is helpful because it explains the next step in the process of turning the draft into a live article (although that particular page clearly wasn't ready to go live). I don't see a benefit of removing the draft messagebox from something that's clearly meant to be a draft article. Huon (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Huon:{{afc submission/draft}} should not be added to others' userspace drafts because it unconsensually inducts them into the AfC process, thereby making the pages likely to eventually become eligible for G13; such an addition is contrary to WP:STALEDRAFT. Shortly after that removal, I saw User talk:Expressimage#Welcome! and added {{userspace draft}}; {{userspace draft}} (which seemingly meets the purpose you describe above as well) is not an AfC template and thereby does not open the draft up to G13, making adding it to another's userpage compliant with STALEDRAFT. (TL;DR) {{afc submission}} potentially allows inappropriate deletion in the future, please use comparable {{userspace draft}} for similar cases going forward. — Godsy (TALKCONT)21:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a prohibition against adding an AfC template to a draft at WP:STALEDRAFT. What I do see is this: "if it is not fit to be an article there is no consensus on moving it without permission" - so there's no prohibition against moving a draft into draftspace, which equally makes it eligible for G13. I'll continue to use {{AFC draft}} until there is a consensus against that. Huon (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Huon: Also, consider the full consensus statement in regard to B1 from WP:UP/RFC2016, i.e. No consensus. However, given that there is consensus that userspace drafts should not have any expiration date, and that draftspace drafts can be submitted for AFC and then deleted, moving drafts from the userspace should be done with care. (the wording of G13 at the time for context) — Godsy (TALKCONT)22:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
With care, indeed. I only add AfC templates to drafts when I have spoken to the editor in question and have ascertained that they mean to write a draft and to submit it for a review - ie, follow the AfC process. Is that care enough for you? Huon (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Huon: I was not implying that you were not doing it with care (a vague wording choice by the closers), nor was it my intention for this to become adversarial. My worries are that new users do not understand the deletion implication; if only everyone read WP:DUD. On the other side of the coin, perhaps retaining drafts for long periods of time is only something active, longstanding editors should be able to do (for various reasons too long to treat here). I appreciate the conditions under which you add the AfC template to others' userspace drafts; I do not believe others who add it do so with as much careful thought. Tell you what – though this will require more diligence on my part, I will try to keep an eye on who besides the author is adding the template and leave the ones you add. Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)04:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Reverted AFC submission
Hi, I noticed that you reverted some edits I made for a few of my students.
I provided these so the students can ask for review when they are ready to move forward with their draft articles. I'm not sure what changed (including my understanding) but such buttons used to be available to students without this intervention on my part. (I'm investigating that.) In any case, when I was looking for an option I noted that Template:AFC_submission/pending says "{{AFC submission}} produces the pending submission banner AFC submission/pending. Note: To place this template use {{subst:submit| username}}, where username is the username of the article's creator (left blank it will assume it is you)." So I inferred I could do this for the student if I specified the username so as to help them. Did I misunderstand? -Reagle (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Reagle: Godsy is of the opinion (per above and the essay WP:DUD to which they contributed) that the "Draft" namespace and the AfC submission templates, such as the ones you placed, are a kind of trap because stale drafts within the Articles for Creation process may be deleted after six months without any edits, whereas "userspace" drafts that are not part of that process are not subject to that speedy deletion. He's basically trying to protect your students' drafts from being subjected to a possible future deletion (after six months without improvement) against the students' will. Whether it's appropriate to add or remove such templates on other editors' drafts is debatable. Possible solutions that should make everyone happy:
Use {{userspace draft}} instead of {{subst:submit}}. That generates a different messagebox which also has a "Submit the draft for review" button but isn't part of AfC and thus doesn't make the page eligible for speedy deletion in the future. Thus Godsy won't remove those messageboxes. (We're all glad that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, aren't we?)
Tell your students to create their drafts in the "Draft" namespace instead of their user space (e.g. Draft:Leptomeningeal metastases instead of User:Thomas.andr/sandbox). Then they are subject to speedy deletion if they grow stale, and adding {{subst:submit}} won't make them so. Thus Godsy won't revert the messageboxes that others put on pages in the Draft namespace.
Tell your students to add the draft messageboxes (ie the {{subst:submit}}) themselves. If they do it, Godsy will assume that they're OK with the possibility of future speedy deletion and won't undo the addition.
Personally I think that stale drafts are unlikely to ever get improved and that having them hang around forever does not do Wikipedia a service, with a larger possibility of hosting problematic pages that should be deleted, but obviously that's a stance on which disagreement on philosophical grounds is possible. I had tried to see how pages from which Godsy removed the tag fared (particularly compared to pages to which I added the tag), but I believe Godsy started with the removals so recently that no sound statistical basis exists. Huon (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I should add that I strongly disagree with the essay WP:DUD; its basic premise seems to be that having other editors review a draft is a problem because they might consider it so inappropriate that they nominate it for deletion. To me, that disagrees with the nature of Wikipedia as a collaborative project. That the essay gives instructions on how to create a live article that AfC reviewers wouldn't think is appropriate is not helping, IMO. Huon (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Reagle: Sorry about the confusion; I did not realize you were the instructor to those student editors at first. When I did notice, I was going to leave you a message but ran short on time. In your capacity as an instructor, I do not necessarily have a problem with you adding an afc template to drafts belonging to your students. Thanks for answering this query promptly for me Huon. Personally, I think that all userspace drafts should be treated the same, regardless of whether they bear {{afc submission}}. Unfortunately, that is not how the system currently works. In regard to draftspace, I do not think it should be subject to arbitrary time limits because there is no deadline. That aside, let me know if you want me to take a look at any of the drafts your students are writing. I would be happy to copyedit for them and offer them advice. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)01:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Better way for new user translations?
Hi Godsy, I do a lot of WP:RFPI requests, and often they are by new enwiki users (e.g. User:Gauthier W. de Reymaker/Jiny Lan) - I added that template to try to make it easy for them to have an option besides just "move to mainspace" when they were done - especially as that editor is also a new user globally (Special:CentralAuth/Gauthier_W._de_Reymaker). Any suggestions for how to make the new article process better for them if the AfC templates are not acceptable? — xaosfluxTalk11:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Godsy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Resolved
