This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
I just wanted to give Kylie a decent article. She deserves that. I'm sorry. Paul Austin ( talk) 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your attempt to help us at Talk:Odin! I have now read your entry several times but I see no mention of the word Oden, there, which is the main topic of the section. Would be nice if you'd read the arguments about that and address that too. In case you mentioned something about it indirectly, I am not knowledgeable enough on some of those technical-linguistic terms to grasp that. --22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
We've had it of your editing on Batman: Arkham City and trying to justify it for no good reasons, pal. You better leave as it or you'll going to blocked for disruptive editing. BattleshipMan ( talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate. — Godsy( TALK CONT) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Starting to wonder if WP:SOCK isn't at play here as well. |
@ BattleshipMan and Darkwarriorblake: Also, any other reversions I've made have been due to lack of an edit summary when it was a clear reversion AND after discussion without response here. So your idea that I've infringed up on the WP:3RR really holds no weight. Darkwarriorblake however CLEARLY broke this rule. Also WP:BRD that you've brought up is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and I wouldn't necessarily consider the edits I made really that bold.
You reverted a few of my recent changes without explanation. These were all badly worded lead paragraphs that had problems that are explained in WP:REFERS. If you read WP:REFERS I think you will understand my edits. Bhny ( talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this article has been the subject of a lot of controversy in the past. If you look at the talk page, you can get a good picture about that controversy. Basically, any kinds of edits to this article by anyone are apt to boomerang in some way, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Anyway, I am going to undo a bit of what you did, and please understand that sometimes a smaller edit is more lasting than a big one. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, according to Wikipedia guidelines we are to use gender-neutral language. According to the Wikipedia article on gender-neutral language (which the guideline references), the use of "he or she" is perfectly acceptable usage.
And then further, taking a cue from the manual of style where it talks about dates, we are not to change from one perfectly acceptable style to another unless there is a good reason to do so based on a consensus view.
Personally I use the singular they in all my writings in all contexts but I do not get to control how Wikipedia operates. A consensus was formed and I abide by it. If you think there needs to be a new guideline then propose your change and work to build a new consensus. SQGibbon ( talk) 15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions template
|
---|
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
" Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "
Godsy - Regarding this message you put on my page, what the heck does it refer to? (Please do NOT answer on my talk page.) Lightbreather ( talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't believe I am required to do it, and I do not take pleasure in doing it, but I am here to notify you that I have started an SPI against you. Lightbreather ( talk) 05:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Your edits here are a significant improvement. Thank you. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 16:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Your request over IRC has been granted by the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
a good faith attempt to help a user
|
---|
I'd love to have a discussion on the article in question. Except that the other party is not willing to have a civil discussion on it. Instead, he continues to dismiss every valid point I present, claiming he's correct. Then he finally says he will not discuss it anymore, and instead continues to revert to his own edits. I'm sorry, but how exactly am I supposed to establish a discussion with the person who ignores everything I post, simply wiped his hands of the issue and claims that he's right no matter what? Terminegen ( talk) 02:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Are you suggesting my 3O was not concise or neutral? Please explain. Dentren | Talk 19:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! A few months ago you helped me with a minor COI edit request for Analog Devices. I've posted a few more suggestions for updates/additions to the article, and I'd be really grateful if you could take a look and offer any feedback. Any help is appreciated - thanks! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 20:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This read to me like a support vote; did you really want it to be neutral? (Neutral votes aren't counted by the 'crats when assessing an RfA consensus.) All the best, Mini apolis 15:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Caitlyn Jenner, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop removing/substituting this word. It is not a neologism, it's defined in the Oxford. Skyerise ( talk) 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise ( talk) 22:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions template
|
---|
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
Hi Godsy, you're absolutely right that "deadnaming" is a neologism, but its use at Transphobia is appropriate. First of all, it's sourced. Secondly, the term is in quotation marks both in the reference and the body of our article. This is a common way of marking neologisms. A lot of transgender-related words are neologisms, of course. If someone were going around introducing "deadnaming" in other articles (e.g., "People deadname Chelsea Manning by calling her Bradley"), that would probably not be appropriate. But since it's specifically discussed as a word at Transphobia, there's really nothing wrong with it. -- BDD ( talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
the continuation of a discussion that originated on another users' talk page;
wp:notforum
| |||
---|---|---|---|
No offense to you, as I'm sure you're a good person, but many people read Scalia's dissent as that of a toddler having a temper tantrum. Could one possibly describe a toddler's temper tantrum as better or worse than another? Perhaps, but it's a tantrum just the same. If there was a way to remove Scalia from the bench, he would have been removed a long, long time ago. He is an embarrassment to the United Sates of America, and there's actually an international consensus on that point. Viriditas ( talk) 02:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, John Adams said this in 1777:
Perhaps this addresses why so many straights think themselves superior to gays, why so many judges think themselves superior to legislators, and why you think yourself superior to Justice Scalia. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
|
In the future I suggest you obtain permission from the involved parties before you censor comments that aren't yours, per WP:TPO. And to censor comments of two editors but issue a warning to only one is WP:HOUNDING and uncivil behaviour. Cobblet ( talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
Godsy, while I don't like the words Cobblet used and you were well within policy to collapse portions of the discussions, I wish you had not collapsed them. The discussion is still ongoing; with luck it will continue in a more civil manner. p b p 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking you up on your offer to run something by you. I just reviewed and copyedited John Collins Covell from the special requests lists at the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. In the section John Collins Covell#West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind I made two block quotes from quotes that had been within the paragraphs. However, when they were within the paragraphs, they each started with a lower-case letter, suggesting that it was not the beginning of a sentence in the original text (which I have not checked). When making block quotes, I think they look better when starting with a capital letter (although I suppose they don't have to), so I capitalized the first letter of each quote and put the capital letter in square brackets to indicate it was not in the original. I don't know if this is right. Do you know? CorinneSD ( talk) 02:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Godsy, I just wanted to pop by and make a quick comment about User:Antics456, a page we both recently tagged for speedy deletion. I noticed that you tagged it as G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. While I agree that the user page was a candidate for speedy deletion, I am not sure G5 was the appropriate criteria as the user had not made any edits to the page while they were actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify. Instead, I believe the user page qualified under G3: Pure vandalism as it was clear by the content and the user's edits that they were acting in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this and thank you for your assistance in cleaning up the user's edits. MJ94 ( talk) 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
On 26 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adam's ale, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Adam's ale is a humorous epithet alluding to the presumption that the biblical first man had only water to drink? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adam's ale. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 01:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey there, you removed my request for WP:3O on the grounds of insufficient discussion having taken place. There was further discussion at my talk page here, however if that is not sufficient then what other dispute resolution channels are available for use? | Naypta ✉ opened his mouth at 06:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop harassing me. A short four-paragraph stub should not have sections period, and should certainly not be tagged as needing them. A third party has already pointed out that it should never have been one-source tagged in the first place per that template's instructions. This is an appalling way to treat people who write new articles: people point out that you were in the wrong so you just keep trying to find things to pointlessly tag the articles with. It was bad enough that Naypta was doing it, but now it seems you're joining in the act. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 07:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"You" are not the consensus on GSL. Stop reverting and take it to the talk page please. I have commented and have issue with your removal of my edit. Take it to RS, or we can just remove the whole thing for now. Cheers. Darknipples ( talk) 07:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Earned. Darknipples ( talk) 06:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Christianisation of Scotland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 21:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Congratulation Godsy, I give this to you for your continued service to the Third Opinion Project. Thank you for maintaining and answering requests. — Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 12:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
On 8 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christianisation of Scotland, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Iona was the main centre for the Christianisation of Scotland until 806, when 68 monks were killed in a Viking raid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christianisation of Scotland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
comments replied to in good faith
|
---|
Just curious, who the fuck do you think you are? The arbiter of Wikipedia? You'll never be an admin. My edits were completely legitimate, and you have literally 0 right to take them down. I'll keep reverting them, so stop harassing me you loser.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8301:FF60:9DF8:1246:98C4:D28B ( talk • contribs) |
I have discussed the point with WilyD about his 'there is no rationale for deletion' arguments, as Tavix did on his user talk page 2 months ago. He will keep on saying this so you don't need to point out that this is inaccurate. Ignore him and feel free to point out when he is bludgeoning the discussion, if he starts doing that again. There is no rationale for his argument that there is no rationale. Thanks, -- Rubbish computer 13:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure regarding speedy administrative closure for multiple reasons. The thread is " Administrative".The discussion is about the topic MOS:ENGVAR templates. Thank you. -- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Noah's wine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 22:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
On 21 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Noah's wine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it has been said that man prefers Noah's wine to Adam's ale? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Noah's wine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Godsy, Thank you for your message, can you , please, delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" article /info/en/?search=Jean_Lambert-Wild BUT PLEASE, keep "Jean Lambert-wild" article which is OK with the sources. So, Thanks to be careful, you can delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" with uppercase "W", but keep the article with tiny "w". When I transleted "Jean Lambert-wild" article in english, Wikipédia had a bug, so I published again, and now there 2 articles, so, you ca delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" when you want. Thank you very much. Best regards. Wikiraguse ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Wikiraguse Wikiraguse ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Godsy, your correct change here per WP:ADV, [9] has been reverted now. [10] I suspect the entire article " Home storage ira" exists solely to house that linkspam, and the content needs to be merged-and-redirected into a more suitable and more generic article about Individual Retirement Accounts. If you agree, can you add the article in question to the AfD queue? Or if not, let me know and I'll see about doing it. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Godsy! I saw your recent edit to the talk page of Noah's wine at Talk:Noah's wine - [12] Two things:
1) I clicked on it, and nothing happened, and
2) I really don't think it is necessary. I actually think it just adds clutter to the page. I think it would look better without it. Corinne ( talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
a discussion with an IP about editing
user pages
|
---|
If you violate civility policy at Wikipedia again, as you did with that IP you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vandalism is defined by WP as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Pointing out systemic flaws is the opposite of vandalism. 115.92.221.62 ( talk) 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I have reversed your speedy tags on WikiProject Wikipedia templates created by Tortle ( talk · contribs) because a general request for undeletion has been made - see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia. Please get Tortle's agreement before re-applying the tags. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@ RHaworth, Liz, and Tokyogirl79: Pinging a few admins who've been involved in this situation, who have the ability to clean up the things on that list above, if they have the time and wouldn't mind.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 09:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Thanks for working hard to delete my mistakes! Tortle ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, I don't see any canvassing on the Signpost talk page you mentioned. It may well be that its use, and the resulting discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of it, led to more eyes on the existence of the redirect and the fact that it was at RFD. However, the point of such a WP: redirect is to act as a shortcut for people to use. The act of using it thus cannot be counted as inappropriate, nor can the subsequent discussion/argument. Additionally, it's the Signpost, which has a wide ranging audience (>3500 from talk page subscriptions/watchlist/transclusions) with widely divergent views. Not exactly somewhere to go for votestacking. -- KTC ( talk) 21:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith (correctly, I assure you) when I removed option 3. But I have a question: Was I correct in thinking that it is functionally equivalent to option 2, by which I mean that you intended that the wikieditors would do the exact same thing as in option 2. If I made a mistake I will fix it just as graciously as you responded in the poll thread this evening. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The birth sex of the subject of an article should be made clear, especially if it is known and relevant, which isn't addressed by option 2. The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
[16] Thanks for your help with my submission. Is the matter now listed for 3O? Sorry, the system is very complicated to understand so I thought I would ask. I like the way you presented the matter but didn't understand how any person would understand what the dispute was from your description of it. Hope it works! Frenchmalawi ( talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
I've learned a lot from you, despite our differences. Congrats on GSL's GA status!! Darknipples ( talk) 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
a participant was topic banned from the subject of discussion
|
---|
The following discussion is closed.
You removed ALL information regarding US laws. diff. That's indefensible. I noted that on the talk page. You didn't reply. Instead you reverted. That's indefensible edit warring too. Please learn the difference between a policy an an essay. -- Elvey( t• c) 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
To keep this discussion in a centralized place, avoid useless repetition and reposting, and allow other interested editors to see the discussion and participate: Further comments should be made at
Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-coi. I will reply there. Comments made here about the subject at hand may be moved there or simply ousted. Regards,—
Godsy(
TALK
CONT) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Godsy Thanks for your edits - I am new to Wikipedia and am learning how to do things as I try and add all relevant information to the Kinematic page. I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia - especially Australian music pages. I understand your point about not linking to a YouTube video as I did for the Cavemen TV series. What does one do if the original network page of the show has long since disappeared? How else can you demonstrate that a particular song was played in an episode? I have a lot of other music info from the 90s in Melbourne that would expand on existing Wikipedia content but finding on-line sources from this time is very difficult. How does one get around this? Thanks! Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagpieDean ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. This is your ballot paper for the Wikipedia leadership election, 2015. Please vote:
I will check your ballot paper shortly. Thanks. -- Roestįk ( talk) 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen your ping and merged the reports, please have a peek and check if the result looks right. LjL ( talk) 19:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please we need with a possibly unbiased appreciation that you could help, to have a consensus or better yet, the better name seeing the two tesis or three of the name, or create a new one, we need you in the Talk:Levantino Spanish. thanks.-- Vvven ( talk) 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
An alternative image was added to the nomination 3 days ago. Could you indicate which version(s) you support? Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Steel1943 (
talk) is wishing you
Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user
Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Godsy, Hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 ( talk) 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Godsy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
I just wanted to give Kylie a decent article. She deserves that. I'm sorry. Paul Austin ( talk) 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your attempt to help us at Talk:Odin! I have now read your entry several times but I see no mention of the word Oden, there, which is the main topic of the section. Would be nice if you'd read the arguments about that and address that too. In case you mentioned something about it indirectly, I am not knowledgeable enough on some of those technical-linguistic terms to grasp that. --22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
We've had it of your editing on Batman: Arkham City and trying to justify it for no good reasons, pal. You better leave as it or you'll going to blocked for disruptive editing. BattleshipMan ( talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate. — Godsy( TALK CONT) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Starting to wonder if WP:SOCK isn't at play here as well. |
@ BattleshipMan and Darkwarriorblake: Also, any other reversions I've made have been due to lack of an edit summary when it was a clear reversion AND after discussion without response here. So your idea that I've infringed up on the WP:3RR really holds no weight. Darkwarriorblake however CLEARLY broke this rule. Also WP:BRD that you've brought up is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and I wouldn't necessarily consider the edits I made really that bold.
You reverted a few of my recent changes without explanation. These were all badly worded lead paragraphs that had problems that are explained in WP:REFERS. If you read WP:REFERS I think you will understand my edits. Bhny ( talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, this article has been the subject of a lot of controversy in the past. If you look at the talk page, you can get a good picture about that controversy. Basically, any kinds of edits to this article by anyone are apt to boomerang in some way, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Anyway, I am going to undo a bit of what you did, and please understand that sometimes a smaller edit is more lasting than a big one. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, according to Wikipedia guidelines we are to use gender-neutral language. According to the Wikipedia article on gender-neutral language (which the guideline references), the use of "he or she" is perfectly acceptable usage.
And then further, taking a cue from the manual of style where it talks about dates, we are not to change from one perfectly acceptable style to another unless there is a good reason to do so based on a consensus view.
Personally I use the singular they in all my writings in all contexts but I do not get to control how Wikipedia operates. A consensus was formed and I abide by it. If you think there needs to be a new guideline then propose your change and work to build a new consensus. SQGibbon ( talk) 15:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions template
|
---|
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
" Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 21:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) "
Godsy - Regarding this message you put on my page, what the heck does it refer to? (Please do NOT answer on my talk page.) Lightbreather ( talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't believe I am required to do it, and I do not take pleasure in doing it, but I am here to notify you that I have started an SPI against you. Lightbreather ( talk) 05:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Your edits here are a significant improvement. Thank you. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 16:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Your request over IRC has been granted by the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 19:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
a good faith attempt to help a user
|
---|
I'd love to have a discussion on the article in question. Except that the other party is not willing to have a civil discussion on it. Instead, he continues to dismiss every valid point I present, claiming he's correct. Then he finally says he will not discuss it anymore, and instead continues to revert to his own edits. I'm sorry, but how exactly am I supposed to establish a discussion with the person who ignores everything I post, simply wiped his hands of the issue and claims that he's right no matter what? Terminegen ( talk) 02:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Are you suggesting my 3O was not concise or neutral? Please explain. Dentren | Talk 19:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! A few months ago you helped me with a minor COI edit request for Analog Devices. I've posted a few more suggestions for updates/additions to the article, and I'd be really grateful if you could take a look and offer any feedback. Any help is appreciated - thanks! Mary Gaulke ( talk) 20:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This read to me like a support vote; did you really want it to be neutral? (Neutral votes aren't counted by the 'crats when assessing an RfA consensus.) All the best, Mini apolis 15:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Caitlyn Jenner, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop removing/substituting this word. It is not a neologism, it's defined in the Oxford. Skyerise ( talk) 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise ( talk) 22:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
discretionary sanctions template
|
---|
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
Hi Godsy, you're absolutely right that "deadnaming" is a neologism, but its use at Transphobia is appropriate. First of all, it's sourced. Secondly, the term is in quotation marks both in the reference and the body of our article. This is a common way of marking neologisms. A lot of transgender-related words are neologisms, of course. If someone were going around introducing "deadnaming" in other articles (e.g., "People deadname Chelsea Manning by calling her Bradley"), that would probably not be appropriate. But since it's specifically discussed as a word at Transphobia, there's really nothing wrong with it. -- BDD ( talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
the continuation of a discussion that originated on another users' talk page;
wp:notforum
| |||
---|---|---|---|
No offense to you, as I'm sure you're a good person, but many people read Scalia's dissent as that of a toddler having a temper tantrum. Could one possibly describe a toddler's temper tantrum as better or worse than another? Perhaps, but it's a tantrum just the same. If there was a way to remove Scalia from the bench, he would have been removed a long, long time ago. He is an embarrassment to the United Sates of America, and there's actually an international consensus on that point. Viriditas ( talk) 02:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Viriditas, John Adams said this in 1777:
Perhaps this addresses why so many straights think themselves superior to gays, why so many judges think themselves superior to legislators, and why you think yourself superior to Justice Scalia. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
|
In the future I suggest you obtain permission from the involved parties before you censor comments that aren't yours, per WP:TPO. And to censor comments of two editors but issue a warning to only one is WP:HOUNDING and uncivil behaviour. Cobblet ( talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
Godsy, while I don't like the words Cobblet used and you were well within policy to collapse portions of the discussions, I wish you had not collapsed them. The discussion is still ongoing; with luck it will continue in a more civil manner. p b p 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm taking you up on your offer to run something by you. I just reviewed and copyedited John Collins Covell from the special requests lists at the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. In the section John Collins Covell#West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind I made two block quotes from quotes that had been within the paragraphs. However, when they were within the paragraphs, they each started with a lower-case letter, suggesting that it was not the beginning of a sentence in the original text (which I have not checked). When making block quotes, I think they look better when starting with a capital letter (although I suppose they don't have to), so I capitalized the first letter of each quote and put the capital letter in square brackets to indicate it was not in the original. I don't know if this is right. Do you know? CorinneSD ( talk) 02:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Godsy, I just wanted to pop by and make a quick comment about User:Antics456, a page we both recently tagged for speedy deletion. I noticed that you tagged it as G5: Creations by banned or blocked users. While I agree that the user page was a candidate for speedy deletion, I am not sure G5 was the appropriate criteria as the user had not made any edits to the page while they were actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify. Instead, I believe the user page qualified under G3: Pure vandalism as it was clear by the content and the user's edits that they were acting in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this and thank you for your assistance in cleaning up the user's edits. MJ94 ( talk) 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
On 26 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Adam's ale, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Adam's ale is a humorous epithet alluding to the presumption that the biblical first man had only water to drink? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adam's ale. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 01:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey there, you removed my request for WP:3O on the grounds of insufficient discussion having taken place. There was further discussion at my talk page here, however if that is not sufficient then what other dispute resolution channels are available for use? | Naypta ✉ opened his mouth at 06:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop harassing me. A short four-paragraph stub should not have sections period, and should certainly not be tagged as needing them. A third party has already pointed out that it should never have been one-source tagged in the first place per that template's instructions. This is an appalling way to treat people who write new articles: people point out that you were in the wrong so you just keep trying to find things to pointlessly tag the articles with. It was bad enough that Naypta was doing it, but now it seems you're joining in the act. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 07:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"You" are not the consensus on GSL. Stop reverting and take it to the talk page please. I have commented and have issue with your removal of my edit. Take it to RS, or we can just remove the whole thing for now. Cheers. Darknipples ( talk) 07:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Earned. Darknipples ( talk) 06:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Christianisation of Scotland at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 21:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Congratulation Godsy, I give this to you for your continued service to the Third Opinion Project. Thank you for maintaining and answering requests. — Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 12:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |
On 8 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christianisation of Scotland, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Iona was the main centre for the Christianisation of Scotland until 806, when 68 monks were killed in a Viking raid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christianisation of Scotland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 17:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
comments replied to in good faith
|
---|
Just curious, who the fuck do you think you are? The arbiter of Wikipedia? You'll never be an admin. My edits were completely legitimate, and you have literally 0 right to take them down. I'll keep reverting them, so stop harassing me you loser.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:8301:FF60:9DF8:1246:98C4:D28B ( talk • contribs) |
I have discussed the point with WilyD about his 'there is no rationale for deletion' arguments, as Tavix did on his user talk page 2 months ago. He will keep on saying this so you don't need to point out that this is inaccurate. Ignore him and feel free to point out when he is bludgeoning the discussion, if he starts doing that again. There is no rationale for his argument that there is no rationale. Thanks, -- Rubbish computer 13:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure regarding speedy administrative closure for multiple reasons. The thread is " Administrative".The discussion is about the topic MOS:ENGVAR templates. Thank you. -- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Noah's wine at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah ( talk) 22:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
On 21 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Noah's wine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it has been said that man prefers Noah's wine to Adam's ale? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Noah's wine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Godsy, Thank you for your message, can you , please, delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" article /info/en/?search=Jean_Lambert-Wild BUT PLEASE, keep "Jean Lambert-wild" article which is OK with the sources. So, Thanks to be careful, you can delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" with uppercase "W", but keep the article with tiny "w". When I transleted "Jean Lambert-wild" article in english, Wikipédia had a bug, so I published again, and now there 2 articles, so, you ca delete "Jean Lambert-Wild" when you want. Thank you very much. Best regards. Wikiraguse ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Wikiraguse Wikiraguse ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Godsy, your correct change here per WP:ADV, [9] has been reverted now. [10] I suspect the entire article " Home storage ira" exists solely to house that linkspam, and the content needs to be merged-and-redirected into a more suitable and more generic article about Individual Retirement Accounts. If you agree, can you add the article in question to the AfD queue? Or if not, let me know and I'll see about doing it. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 15:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Godsy! I saw your recent edit to the talk page of Noah's wine at Talk:Noah's wine - [12] Two things:
1) I clicked on it, and nothing happened, and
2) I really don't think it is necessary. I actually think it just adds clutter to the page. I think it would look better without it. Corinne ( talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
a discussion with an IP about editing
user pages
|
---|
If you violate civility policy at Wikipedia again, as you did with that IP you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vandalism is defined by WP as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Pointing out systemic flaws is the opposite of vandalism. 115.92.221.62 ( talk) 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I have reversed your speedy tags on WikiProject Wikipedia templates created by Tortle ( talk · contribs) because a general request for undeletion has been made - see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia. Please get Tortle's agreement before re-applying the tags. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@ RHaworth, Liz, and Tokyogirl79: Pinging a few admins who've been involved in this situation, who have the ability to clean up the things on that list above, if they have the time and wouldn't mind.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 09:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Thanks for working hard to delete my mistakes! Tortle ( talk) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, I don't see any canvassing on the Signpost talk page you mentioned. It may well be that its use, and the resulting discussion of the appropriateness or otherwise of it, led to more eyes on the existence of the redirect and the fact that it was at RFD. However, the point of such a WP: redirect is to act as a shortcut for people to use. The act of using it thus cannot be counted as inappropriate, nor can the subsequent discussion/argument. Additionally, it's the Signpost, which has a wide ranging audience (>3500 from talk page subscriptions/watchlist/transclusions) with widely divergent views. Not exactly somewhere to go for votestacking. -- KTC ( talk) 21:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith (correctly, I assure you) when I removed option 3. But I have a question: Was I correct in thinking that it is functionally equivalent to option 2, by which I mean that you intended that the wikieditors would do the exact same thing as in option 2. If I made a mistake I will fix it just as graciously as you responded in the poll thread this evening. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The birth sex of the subject of an article should be made clear, especially if it is known and relevant, which isn't addressed by option 2. The intention was to make pointing out the sex of a subject for clarity in an appropriate manner reasonable per the guideline.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
[16] Thanks for your help with my submission. Is the matter now listed for 3O? Sorry, the system is very complicated to understand so I thought I would ask. I like the way you presented the matter but didn't understand how any person would understand what the dispute was from your description of it. Hope it works! Frenchmalawi ( talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
I've learned a lot from you, despite our differences. Congrats on GSL's GA status!! Darknipples ( talk) 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) |
a participant was topic banned from the subject of discussion
|
---|
The following discussion is closed.
You removed ALL information regarding US laws. diff. That's indefensible. I noted that on the talk page. You didn't reply. Instead you reverted. That's indefensible edit warring too. Please learn the difference between a policy an an essay. -- Elvey( t• c) 20:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
To keep this discussion in a centralized place, avoid useless repetition and reposting, and allow other interested editors to see the discussion and participate: Further comments should be made at
Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-coi. I will reply there. Comments made here about the subject at hand may be moved there or simply ousted. Regards,—
Godsy(
TALK
CONT) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Godsy Thanks for your edits - I am new to Wikipedia and am learning how to do things as I try and add all relevant information to the Kinematic page. I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia - especially Australian music pages. I understand your point about not linking to a YouTube video as I did for the Cavemen TV series. What does one do if the original network page of the show has long since disappeared? How else can you demonstrate that a particular song was played in an episode? I have a lot of other music info from the 90s in Melbourne that would expand on existing Wikipedia content but finding on-line sources from this time is very difficult. How does one get around this? Thanks! Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagpieDean ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. This is your ballot paper for the Wikipedia leadership election, 2015. Please vote:
I will check your ballot paper shortly. Thanks. -- Roestįk ( talk) 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen your ping and merged the reports, please have a peek and check if the result looks right. LjL ( talk) 19:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please we need with a possibly unbiased appreciation that you could help, to have a consensus or better yet, the better name seeing the two tesis or three of the name, or create a new one, we need you in the Talk:Levantino Spanish. thanks.-- Vvven ( talk) 02:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
An alternative image was added to the nomination 3 days ago. Could you indicate which version(s) you support? Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Steel1943 (
talk) is wishing you
Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user
Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Godsy, Hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 ( talk) 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Godsy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)