User talk:Godsy/Archive/2020

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Bradley Lewin

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirect
Template:Wikimedia Meta-Wiki redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aasim 20:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility Notice
The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly. Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:George Herscu

"Wikipedia:AFF" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:AFF. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Erm...
...I'm not sure I understand ... Salvio 11:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why XFDcloser did that. That discussion which you closed is listed directly below the one I just closed, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joy Bridenbaker, on that day, i.e. Miscellany for deletion. A glitch for some reason perhaps? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it, yes. That's something I've noticed before: when the same section contains more than one MfD, XFDcloser sometimes does not understand where one ends and the following begins. To avoid that problem, I open the individual MfD and close it from there. Salvio 11:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Eagleash. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:Jprice13/sandbox, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I did not review that but rather I merely patrolled it. Second: Why? It is a seemingly reasonable draft that has been submitted to AfC for evaluation and will be unpatrolled again should it be moved to the mainspace. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I've had that happen to me when marking an early version as patrolled but somehow it gets a green tick in the curation toolbar. I don't know about 'unpatrolled if moved to mainspace' but to mark a sandbox draft not yet passed AfC as reviewed (which I realise was not your real intention) does not seem right to me. Also it is a duplicate of another submission which has twice been declined. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * New pages patrol/Reviewers is the closest thing to documenting "'unpatrolled if moved to mainspace'" that I can put my finger on offhand. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really clear (as ever). A goodly proportion of pages in the new pages list appear with a green tick so may not get reviewed further. Anyway; I stopped marking sandboxes as patrolled when the anomaly first surfaced. I don't know whether it's a glitch or what. Not as annoying as moving a sandbox to draft, creating a redirect which the user then removes to create something else, for which the reviewer gets the credit... or blame. Eagleash (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much
I had erroneously thought that the addendum contained in FNC#2 which states meant that if I saw a poster of a football club  & the image name, hypothetically speaking was  goodfootballclub.jpg, I felt moving it  goodfootballclubLogo.jpg was more appropriate but apparently I was wrong, I thank you for the guidance & feedback thus far. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick question
When is it appropriate to use F9 speedy delete For copyvio’s as opposed to using “Di-license” or could you be so kind as to give me an example on when a Di-license is to be used & when an F9 is to be used Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Renaming and a few arcane licenses are more of my domain in regard to files. Not very familiar with that particular aspect. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario
Hello, I think I need your input here, if hypothetically speaking I come across a file named “This is a photo for Wikipedia” then I proceed to do a reverse image search on the photo & it reveals the name of the subject is, let’s say “John doe xyz”, when requesting a rename which would be more appropriate/applicable, an FNC#2 or FNC#3 ? Celestina007 (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is closer to than WP:FNC than #2, but it does not fit neatly in any of the categories. It would be an unusual case that should clearly be renamed but does not quite meet any of the nine widely undisputed (i.e. common) criteria. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was what I believed relatively applied but I just had to ask someone already experienced in file related activity(you) before proceeding any further. I came across such situation about 9 days ago. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Right cite. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for pestering you everyday
A hypothetical scenario here, what do I do when a file name Is, let’s say for example; Jane doe xyz 30345355 do I rename media to simply jane doe xyz & eliminate the “30345355” attached to the name? or do I just leave it as it is? Celestina007 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If a rename is already due according to the criteria, then you generally have leeway to clean up the title as you see fit. Otherwise, unless the title is super unweildly, generally leave it be (I would not consider your example to meet that bar). Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As usual, thanks for always being there to answer my pestering question. Celestina007 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help encourage civility and collaboration. Thanks.
I think it's clear that in my opinion the discussions at Talk:Alexis Texas have gone far off what's appropriate for any article, let alone one under sanctions. Please help encourage civility and collaboration. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First, your collapsing is generally inappropriate (see WP:COLLAPSENO; and or similar templates ... should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.). Second, the point at which you are doing it in the discussion makes it obvious that you are leaving your comments visible while attempting to obscure those rebutting yours by GuzzyG, Rite cite, and myself. I wholeheartedly disagree with your continued assertions that our, and especially my, comments were inappropriate. I stand by mine and fully and assert that they conform to the guidelines and policies that offer advice and rules regarding civil discord in such forums here. It will remain uncollapsed (bar a neutral third party choosing to collapse it, which I find unlikely). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. I was hoping to de-escalate the situation, and hoped you would do the same.
 * I'm afraid we don't agree.
 * How was it appropriate to assume I was talking about specific editors who were involved in the discussion, even after I clarified? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have clearly explained and it is obvious how the specified portion of WP:TPG applies. That aside, you are reading more into the generalized latter half of the single time I have posted on that talk page than is there. If you have issues with the words of others, raise it with them if you desire (though it would likely be a fruitless endeavor) in an appropriate way (which does not include collapsing). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Guess Who’s Here Again
Yeah, yeah it’s me again with my incessant questions. Now, the problem is I’ve been in situations where an editor claims the subject of the article has transferred the rights of an image to the editor who has uploaded it but since I don’t have an OTRS account I can’t check to confirm, I guess my question would be are there any go-to file mover OTRS volunteers I can ping to confirm if an editors assertion that the rights of an image has been transferred to them is a true or false one? Celestina007 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am unsure (whether or not a file should be renamed does not relate to whether its existence is appropriate). I'll defer that question to JJMC89, who might know. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what moving a file has to do with verifying any permission/copyright.Generally, claims that an article subject transferred the rights of an image to the uploader aren't true. Usually the article subject doesn't hold copyright to the image in the first place, so they couldn't transfer it if they wanted to. The photographer usually holds the copyright, not the subject of the photograph, unless officially transferred, e.g. by contract. Even when copyright was transferred to the subject, they usually won't have transferred it to someone to upload to on Wikipedia/Commons. Usually it is something along the lines of "you can use this photo on Wikipedia", which is not a copyright transfer or a (free) license.If a file doesn't have OTRS permission on it, then an OTRS agent hasn't verified permission. Otherwise, if someone claims to have sent permission, then the file should have OTRS pending (generally added by uploader) or OTRS received (added by OTRS agent) depending on the ticket status. You can ask me or at WP:OTRSN/c:COM:OTRSN about specific cases.—&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks I sure would. I asked the question because I generally do file patrolling coupled with file moving. Thanks once again for the reply JJ & thank you Godsy for pointing me in the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your close of the deletion attempt at 37th AVN Awards! What do you think of my recent improvements to the page? Right cite (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not taken an in-depth look at the page that was the subject of the discussion or any of the recent changes to it. The speedy close was appropriate because of the state of the discussion (i.e. no one had "suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion" and the nominator withdrew their initiation; WP:WITHDRAWN). Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , okay thanks, feel free to take a look whenever you get a chance, if you like, Right cite (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal which you may be interested in
Please see Tfd, where I proposed to merge Template:Lang-he-n into Template:Lang-he. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with a redirect
Thanks for your edits to the Al Schmidt page! I'm very new when it comes to that sort of stuff (redirects) and I apparently didn't read the docs very well 🙄: The following templates are used to create a soft redirect link: I was planning on expanding his Wikidata entry and thought it would more useful than a redlink. Sorry to bother, but so that I don't make a similar mistake again, would you mind explaining why you think a "soft redirect is inappropriate"?
 * Soft redirect for all soft redirects except those below:
 * Wikidata redirect for Wikidata redirects

If I could be even more of a pain, would you mind taking a look at the redirect I set up recently for the Fraud Street Run? I'm pretty sure that I went about it the right way because I just copied what I'd seen elsewhere, but it'd be nice to know that someone with much more experience agrees.

Many thanks in advance! Aluxosm (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just added a load of statements to the Wikidata entity for, this data can be viewed directly or in a more visually pleasing way with sites like Reasonator -
 * I'm in total agreement with the statements on the Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project page that suggest that soft redirects bring the sister projects closer together and that they prevent future clean-up issues. So now that the Wikidata entity has way more information than the article that it currently redirects to, could I maybe change your mind in regards to the soft redirect being inappropriate? 😜 Aluxosm (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Farm-Fresh eye.png I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikidata redirect is a redirect category (i.e. a target besides there is also neccessary) and no specialized soft redirect template exists for direct linkage to wikidata. I do not think sending readers to wikidata is generally, if ever, helpful. Readers will also very likely be viewing it as is, without any special tools. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect might be a good place to garner some input form others on the situation if it is something you still think is appropriate in this situation. That aside, Fraud Street Run looks fine. Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to check all this out, and for the well linked reply, it's much appreciated! I think I understand the lay of the land much better now; I hadn't really noticed the difference between the Wikidata redirect template and others like Commons redirect before. I think it's a bit of a shame there's not something like that for Wikidata but I can understand the "danger" in having one. It would likely be misused to the point where Wikipedia would end up with a page for any random person/thing on Wikidata, completely bypassing WP:NOTABILITY. The thing that I really want to avoid is having someone start an article from scratch without knowing about the Wikidata entity and then potentially going though all of that research again, I guess that's more a documentation/education problem though. If I have any brainwaves, I'll be sure to mention it in the redirect project. In this case, knowing what I know now, I'd probably say it'd be better off as a redlink but I'm not sure I can bring myself to break the link to Wikidata 😅, so I'll leave that one to your (or a future editors) discretion. Thanks again! Aluxosm (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
May Jesus Christ bless you and your loved ones on this day. Merry Christmas! RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy Yuletide! . — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)