User talk:Thryduulf/archive12

Great Britain and Ireland
Just seen your notification list at Talk:Great Britain and Ireland. Any reason I was not included? Daicaregos (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I intended to notify everyone who had commented in the thread, and thought I had done, but obviously I overlooked your signature. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Accepted. I'll step down my paranoia status to usual/strong then ;) Best, Daicaregos (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple references
The village pump is where good ideas like yours go to die. Just file a wishlist bug, that's what I always do. —  Scott  •  talk  00:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was hoping to get some support before posting there, but the repeated missing of the point has worn me down about it. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Re capitalisation of NZ railway station names eg Dunedin Railway Station, America (or at least some) capitalises eg Hunter Railroad Station; for the same reason ie where it is is part of a name of a particular station all the words are capitalised. Eg Eiffel Tower not Eiffel tower. Hugo999 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562578087 your edit] to List of lists of presidents may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * **List of Presidents of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe|Council of Europe

Closed case template
Hi. Just to let you know that I'd replied at your query on editnotices. Cenarium (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian roads)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian roads). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Hardie elect.jpg
You'd raised a copyright question in November 2012 about File:Hardie elect.jpg at WT:PUF; I saw it and moved the discussion to WP:MCQ, in case you're interested in resuming that discussion. TheFeds 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Jacobite en route to Mallaig 12.jpg
Hi, do you recall where the train was when you took this picture? I think that it's at the north-western end of Loch Dubh, but I'm going by maps and aerial photos. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall for certain, however that looks the most likely location. I can say for certain that it's between two tunnels that are between and  stations and before a body of water I've labelled as "Loch nan Umah" but don't regard that last one as necessarily accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are about ten tunnels on that stretch, most of which are under 100 yards long. I can't find anywhere else that might fit, so I've [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_Jacobite_en_route_to_Mallaig_12.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=99831207 marked up the file description page]. Thanks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Analysis at Arbitration board
That was a truly exceptional analysis you made at the arbitration clarification request for Argentine History. Thank you.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, although I am rather surprised to be receiving such effusive praise for what was only a couple of minutes skim-reading relevant parts of two articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people don't bother to even understand Latin America, let alone read up on the history (even for a couple of minutes). It's important to praise those who still use their brain when editing. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI: AzaToth's test
Just thought you might want to know I came across a Twinkle error yesterday with RfD listing. AzaToth looked into it and ended up fixing it; that must have been the source of today's nomination that you closed. --BDD (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, sorry; Forgot to remove it from RFD. → Aza Toth 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Howdo
Hello Thryduulf,

Have just been looking through WP:RFD and adding my two pennorth. Don't get much time to edit Wikipedia now, but when I do I tend to concentrate on editing articles rather than Wikignoming. So I just wanted to say thanks on all the hard work you do at RfD and probably elsewhere that I don't notice, and if I don't get a chance much to reply to your comments back at me, please be assured I know you are always very judicious and make the best decision as you see it.

Thanks for all the hard work you do here.

Sincerely,

Si Trew (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your screenshot guide
I have been meaning for ages to work out how to do screenshots, and now when I really need it for VE tests you have put it all in one handy page. You're doing wonders on WP:VEF, too - are WMF paying you? They should be, you must be working full-time hours at least. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks, and no, I've not getting paid (although I wouldn't object!). I guess I am putting in about full-time hours on this, although I am doing other things around it so it's not solid 9-5 or anything like that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops
Hi, my reply on the VE feedback page (diff) about references and working offline was just my opinion. But re-reading it in context it looks as though I'm talking directly to you. That could be a bit offensive given that you're an experienced editor and you know all this stuff. It wasn't my intention! - Pointillist (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but there was no need to worry! I was busy writing a long reply elsewhere on the page and hadn't seen your reply before this note, and I didn't take any offence anyway. I also agree with you :) Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the curation/caretaking/tracking work you're doing at the VE feedback page. I know you're not a paid WMF staff person, and are doing this as a volunteer for the benefit of the project; it is much appreciated by those of us who drop by and leave bugs for you to look at. Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's something I've found I'm good at that needs doing :) Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * <3 I'd better get on track soon, this was meant to be my only free weekend this summer!!! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Locked buttons in Visual Editor
Hello Thryduulf, could you add VisualEditor/Feedback to Bugzilla please? I think, Elitre (WMF) left for her well-deserved weekend break and i have no bugzilla account of my own. Thank you for all your help. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  thinking of options

Thank you for quality pictures uploaded, for nominating to the news, for taking care of redirects and projects, for helpful proposals and thinking of options ("I can think of at least two options"), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For no help (too late) but support: follow the link on top of my user and sign under "Continued collaboration". Once there, don't miss the link to "peace and reconciliation". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning
Hi Thryduulf, question for you here in case you miss it. By adding Elizabeth, unless based on multiple, informed sources, we risk causing others to publish that name, when it might not be correct. So I would want to know that it had come from Manning or his lawyer. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just replied there. "Elizabeth" is reported in at lest three reliable sources, but I'm still searching for the ulimate source. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Nation and Voice of Russia articles appear to be Op-Ed rather than news, so they wouldn't be reliable. If you have a real news source, please can you cite it immediately after the name in the first sentence? Otherwise it might be best to restore "E.", at least for the time being. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This needs to be undone asap in case we cause the wrong name to spread. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt attention to this (diff). I'll close the editprotected request on the talk page as soon as I can save though the blizzard of edit conflicts. - Pointillist (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

name
Apologies! (And how embarrassing, given the context!). Morwen (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it! It's not often in life you have to distinguish between two spellings of the same Anglo Saxon name, and "uu" isn't exactly a common sequence in modern English orthography! Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-stop flight, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Green Island, Anholt and Porvenir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bug
Hi, do you happen to remember whether this situation was reported before/follow a relevant bug for this? When you create a section for the references and add the relevant tag, it will suppress the Related Articles one. Searching in Bugzilla for very common keywords is getting increasingly difficult... --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't recall another bug like that one. Not sure if that's good or bad! Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong link! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it make any difference? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, still not ringing any bells. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! I'll file it ASAP lest I forget. Thanks :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation coachbuilder Pennock
Pennock was an important coachbuilder in the Netherlands. Important enough to receive three mentions in the Coachbuilder article. Are you sure you mean disambiguation? Might you mean someone should write an article about Pennock? Eddaido (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (copied and pasted from User talk Eddaido) I know nothing about the subject, but any article about them needs to be at a title other than Pennock as that is a disambiguation page between two people with that surname. If you know what the title should be then disambiguate the link to that title, even if it is a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out you seem to have done something odd by labelling the word disambiguation required. If someone actually wrote an article and tried to name it Pennock they could not make it work! So no disambiguation is required, is it? Please remove your note. Eddaido (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. The page currently links to a disambiguation page but shouldn't, so the link needs disambiguation. That disambiguation can be to a redlink if the article doesn't exist, but as I don't know what title the article should have I can't disambiguate it myself. See for an example of disambiguating to a redlink - Vanvitelli is a disambiguation page, so shouldn't be linked, but the correct article doesn't exist, so I changed the link to Piazza Vanvitelli which is where the article should be written. The only reason I didn't do the same on the Coachbuilder article is because I don't know what the article about the coachbuilders should be called. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

50th edition
Here is the 50th edition. I can only apologise this is so late as a lot of work came up but it is still no excuse so again I will apologise. Inside includes everything since the last edition as usual. Enjoy. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear Thryduulf.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Poetry
Hello again Thryduulf. I hope you are well. I just wanted to say that I recently stumbled across, and very much enjoyed, your soliloquy in favour of Jimbo's beard. Have you written anything else? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about that! I don't think I've written anything else relevant to Wikipedia, certainly nothing recently. There are some old poems of mine on my website at http://www.sucs.org/~cmckenna/poetry/ but I've not written any in several years and not updated that in even longer. I have written a couple of parody songs more recently that what is on that page, but I can't remember right now what they were about or where I would have saved them. Now you've reminded me of them I may recall where they are, but don't hold your breath! Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RfD
Hi Thryduulf, you're missed at RfD! I do what I can to keep the place in order, but sometimes I just can't help but offer my own opinions. I've currently commented on every item in the backlog, so I don't feel comfortable doing any closes or relists. If you get some free time, maybe stop by and take a look. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've finished the stuff I needed to upload for today, so I'll pop in next chance I get. I've got various family issues happening at the moment though so I haven't got as much online time as usual. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Gladiators events.
Per Articles for deletion/Atlaspheres, I have deleted all of the listed articles. I have also proposed to merge List of American Gladiators events with List of Gladiators UK events, as the materials onthose pages are largely duplicative. Based on your participation in the deletion discussion, you may also wish to participate in the merge discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 9
Hi, I've created Meetup/Oxford/9 with no date, would October 13 or October 20 be most convenient for you? There's a discussion page at m:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/9 so that a date may be agreed. Please comment there. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks
for one of the better written BLP-defenses I've yet to see. I appreciate your civil contribution. I still don't agree, but it's a good direction to bring the discussion to.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, Thryduulf. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 560 words and 10 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 04:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for September 19, 2013
VisualEditor has been updated twice in the last two weeks. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week.

As announced, the toolbar was redesigned to be simpler, shorter, and to have the ability to have drop-down groups with descriptions. What you see now is the initial configuration and is expected to change in response to feedback from the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. The controls to add  (underline),   (subscript), and   (superscript),   (strikethrough) and   (computer code/monospace font) annotations to text are available to all users in the drop-down menu. At the moment, all but the most basic tools have been moved into a single drop-down menu, including the tools for inserting media, references, reference lists, and templates. The current location of all of the items in the toolbar is temporary, and your opinions about the best order are needed! Please offer suggestions at VisualEditor/Feedback/Toolbar.

In an eagerly anticipated upgrade to the reference dialog, newly added references or reference groups no longer need the page to be saved before they can be re-used (bugs 51689 and 52000). The 'Use existing reference' button is now disabled on pages which don't yet have any references (bug 51848). The template parameter filter in the transclusion dialog now searches both parameter name and label (bug 51670).

In response to several requests, there are some new keyboard shortcuts. You can now set the block/paragraph formatting from the keyboard: Ctrl sets a block as a regular paragraph; Ctrl up to Ctrl sets it as a Heading 1 ("Page title") to Heading 6 ("Sub-heading 4"); Ctrl sets it as pre-formatted (bug 33512). Ctrl, which creates level 2 section headings, may be the most useful.

Some improvements were made to capitalization for links, so typing in "iPhone" will offer a link to "iPhone" as well as "IPhone" (bug 50452).

Copying and pasting within the same document should work better as of today's update, as should copying from VisualEditor into a third-party application (bug 53364, bug 52271, bug 52460). Work on copying and pasting between VisualEditor instances (for example, between two articles) and retaining formatting when copying from an external source into VisualEditor is progressing.

Major improvements to editing with input method editors (IMEs; mostly used for Indic and East Asian languages) are being deployed today. This is a complex change, so it may produce unexpected errors. On a related point, the names of languages listed in the "languages" (langlinks) panel in the Page settings dialog now display as RTL when appropriate (bug 53503).

Looking ahead: The help/'beta' menu will soon expose the build number next to the "Leave feedback" link, so users can give more specific reports about issues they encounter (bug 53050). This change will make it easier for developers to identify any cacheing issues, once it starts reporting the build number (currently, it says "Version false"). Also, inserting a link, reference or media file will put the cursor after the new content again (bug 53560). Next week’s update will likely improve how dropdowns and other selection menus behave when they do not fit on the screen, with things scrolling so the selected item is always in view.

If you are active at other Wikipedias, the next group of Wikipedias to have VisualEditor offered to all users is being finalized. About two dozen Wikipedias are on the list for Tuesday, September 24 for logged-in users only, and on Monday, September 30 for unregistered editors. You can help with translating the documentation. In several cases, most of the translation is already done, and it only needs to be copied over to the relevant Wikipedia. If you are interested in finding out whether a particular Wikipedia is currently on the list, you can leave a message for me at my talk page.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Thryduulf, I just wanted to drop by and say thank you. Every time I see your signature I know that there is a helpful, insightful, useful and when necessary defusing and calm comment (or action), [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=573618247&oldid=573602896 this] being the one I just saw. So I just wanted to say thanks for being there and making the comments you it is very much appreciated! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say every edit is that good or clam, but I do generally try my best. It's nice to be appreciated though, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the praise, all of it, speaking of all your contributions I saw, - I can't speak of others ;) I admire how you can calm even yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always great to have you back at VE:FP :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll start getting a big(ger) head if you lot keep this up! Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oct Metro
I will also happily accept requests for the gallery (if not, images will be selected from archives elsewhere). Again I will also remind people that if they ever want to try doing a future month's issue, feel free to with your own style etc or even just stick to the current format. Don't hesitate to contact me for the resources of things to include in this newsletter. Otherwise, enjoy! Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Two sons
Good morning Thryduulf, I have followed your edit here because it left an ungrammatical sentence, by rewriting that part. My edit summary is not aimed at you. Cheers! — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  08:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC) — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  09:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I misread "the two have" has "the have two" which would be a typo for "they" :) Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! I realised that ... have a good week!

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Mobile" LT edit-a-thon
Chris Thanks for your invaluable input yesterday on all matters LT. I'm emailing Jonathan Cardy at WMUK now about setting up a project page. Late last night I sketched out a few ideas here: User:Edwardx/Mobile_editathon_ideas

I'm pretty sure that there are images of all the LT stations on Commons, and in most cases quite a number. However, I've not attempted to assess the quality. Thinking about it more and looking at the tube map, I quite like the idea of focusing on the most modern stuff - new Jubilee Line stations, East London line new stations and the DLR. Some of these are under-documented and unlike the heritage stations will be probably change more in the near future.

And we could focus on a relatively small geographical area of East London and maybe a bit of the south bank. Any more thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It IS happening on 9 November. Your input is most welcome:

WikiProject London/Wiki takes the Tube Edwardx (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577266961 your edit] to Extreme points of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ski Valley, New Mexico}} — highest village limits in all U.S. territory at 12,581 ft No residents of Taos Ski Valley live above 10,350 ft {{cite web|title=About Taos

Flow Newsletter
Hey Thryduulf. I'm dropping you a note to let you know (or remind you) about Flow, the structured discussion system for Wikipedia that we're building. You may have heard about some of the longer-term vision for Flow in the past, but in the last two months we've been moving quickly to narrow down the short-term scope of the project, and we're keen to get feedback.

First: we've written up an explanation of the "minimum viable product" – the set of features that will be in the first, on-wiki deployment. Because discussions on Wikipedia are complex and varied, we're approaching Flow development as an incremental process of uncovering user needs for different types of discussion. The first release will be limited to a few WikiProject talkpages only, with the goal of testing out our first stab at peer-to-peer discussion functionality and improving it based on feedback from the WikiProject members who use it. If you've got any thoughts on the MVP, or on the philosophy we're trying to follow with this software, let us know on the Flow talkpage. If you know of a WikiProject that might be interested in testing this out, let Maryana know on her talkpage :)

Second: we're having a set of discussions around some experimental features we'll be trying in the first release. These include indenting and nesting of comments and comment editing. If you've got any practical thoughts on these, we'd appreciate hearing them. For background and feedback on the design, there are the ongoing set of design iteration notes, a Design FAQ, and a page for design feedback.

The software prototype is still in early development, and changing daily in small ways, with major goals updating every 2 weeks. If you've got comments about other bits of the software, we'll be holding an IRC office hours session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on 17 November to talk about Flow as a whole, and fielding questions on the talkpage before and after then.

Third: this is a pre-newsletter announcement of a new WP:Flow/Newsletter signup page! If you'd like further updates, details, and requests for input, please add your name there.

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to multiple-human-error (the best kind of error!) the Office Hours meeting was announced with the wrong month. The logs for today's (quiet) meeting, can be seen at IRC office hours.
 * The updated time and date of our next IRC office hours meeting is: 18:00 UTC on 24 October. Thanks, and sorry about the mixup. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013
VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic derailment
I see you've plastered Lac-Mégantic derailment with a mess of cn and "as of when?" tags. You might be overdoing this a bit. To plaster "as of when?" onto statements that businesses are displaced to temporary locations is redundant if the article already states that the condition has existed since the July 6, 2013 derailment and will continue at least until the new buildings are constructed in November or December as decontamination of the original sites will continue into 2014. There are also cases where there are two or three sentences of text cited once (at the end of the paragraph) to a newspaper. Before you insert pointless "cn" tags between each of the sentences, please look at the cited source - the info is likely in the cited news article for the paragraph already. The only time the "ref" tag has to be adjacent to each point is when dealing with direct quotation of a subject- such as the Hunter Harrison (Canadian Pacific) remarks. K7L (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly there are a few too many, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "mess". I only added the tags where it was not clear to me given the context when reading the article linearly. Do remove them if you can reword to remove the ambiguity or discuss on the talkpage any you are unsure about. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danby Wiske railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

reply
I am sorry I didn't see your reply prior to the closure of Articles for deletion/Premetro

I did spend considerable time looking for RS -- far more than 5 minutes.
 * I did find the Chinese reference you listed first. Note -- what it describes is different than what the article claims to describe.
 * With regard to the Belgian use of the term -- please see this comment] where I wrote: "If the article is to be about Belgian premetro systems shouldn't it be renamed?"
 * With regard to the 6 Argentinian links you provided, please see the last paragraph of the nomination that warned: "Note: web searches will turn up lots of hits -- in Spanish. These are false positives because their is a homonym in Argentina. All the Spanish language hits are to that system -- unrelated to a possible English term." I am going to quote from the PreMetro E2 article: "The low-platform stops along the line are long enough to accommodate only one car at at time, and multiple-unit operation is not planned, so the tramcars are not equipped with couplers."  Multiple-unit operation is not planned.  This sounds to me as if the Argentinian system is named PreMetro for some other reason that planners intended to upgrade it to heavy rail.
 * With regard to your link to The Contemporary Soviet City, which opens to a page of endnotes -- one of which says "Exclusive right-of-way, some tunnelling, automated controls, etc. -- sometimes also called 'premetro'." I looked for the page where the endnote was instantiated -- so may I point out it is not in the part of the book open to preview.  Note also that this endnote doesn't contain a definition of "premetro".  The phrase "sometimes called 'premetro'" could merely refer to railfans.
 * With regard to your Vienna site -- did you check its about page? The very first sentence reads " This is not an official site run by the Vienna Transport Authority (Wiener Linien), but a strictly private, unofficial website."''  So I think it was misleading of you to imply it was a reliable source.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons vs. local
&mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal...
I've replied to you at WP:AN/I regarding the IP-hopping transport article vandal. If you think this might help, just let me know by commenting there. -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee nomination
Hello Thryduulf. For the past year or so I keep coming across your contributions to discussions in project space and can't help but be impressed by the quality of your reasoning and the eloquence of your arguments (even when I disagree with your opinion). Your ability to assess evidence in light of Wikipedia policy has been a great asset to past and current Arbitration discussions. Now that nominations are open, I was wondering if you had given any thought to serving on the Committee itself. I understand that only self-nominations are accepted, but I would be pleased to endorse yours. Psychonaut (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are the second person who has encouraged me to stand for the arbcom this year - which is two more supports than I thought I would get! Seriously, sanding for the committee is something I have considered, but I can't commit the time required currently and I have no idea longer term than about 6 months ahead. I would not vote for a candidate who did not have a reasonable expectation of being able to give the time needed and to being able to complete the full term, so I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to put my name forward on this occasion.
 * Ask me again next year and the answer might be different. At least I hope I'll have some idea of what I'm doing long term by then! Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

breaking the existing links and disrupting the users
There are 10 incoming links to "wp:CUM", 2 of which relate to the RfD, with most of the rest on old archives. That is beyond trivial to go back and adjust to "wp:CMF". Did you really consider what you're doing here? Ensuring that a link to a help guide is titled with a sex term is not really the face we should be presenting to the world...and as to that, I really detest the "but no one knows about it anyways" argument (e.g. "it is exceedingly unlikely that a new user who would be offended would know of the existence of "). This is crass, and a crass that is completely unnecessary, as the 3-letter word has nothing to do with the subject matter of the help guide. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know what I'm doing - evaluating the arguments presented in the deletion discussion. Yes it would be possible to change the incoming links, and there is nothing stopping you doing that, however as was pointed out it is a logical acronym and will likely be continued to be used. The point of the argument about not presenting it to newbies is that when seen in context "CUM" is clearly an acronym and not a word. You presented your argument that it was offensive multiple times in the discussion but did not convince everybody of your point of view. In evaluating the arguments presented I found those presenting the opposite view stronger. Feel free to take it to DRV if you still think I have erred. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should have discarded the keeps...1 "not censored", 1 "because a redlink is worse" and 1 "per X", none of which made a convincing argument for why utility outweighs offense in this case. "Not censored" is also an argument for article-space, not project-space; we can choose to act maturely and not have it be judged as a censorious act.  I just may file what would be my 1st DRV, actually, as this seems to be a questionable case of policy application. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not censored applies to the whole project by its very nature - we cannot produced an uncensored encyclopaedia without an uncensored project space. That a bluelink is preferable to salting directly follows from the principle that the lest restrictive option should be applied and "per X" is an endorsement of another person's argument without repetition. Regarding "we can choose to act maturely and not have it be judged as a censorious act.", indeed we can, but in this case the mature course of action is to neutrally weigh-up the arguments presented maturely in the discussion, and had the balance been that the offence outweighed the utility that would not have been a censorious act. However the most convincing arguments were those advocating that the utility was greater than the offence. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your weighing of the keep voters' arguments and your own interpretation of policy in closing this RfD, so I have filed it at Deletion Review. Nothing personal, you did great work at the Muhammad affair a ways back, but this is going a bit too far. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects
Hi, you participated in Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29, some of which I have relisted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for November 2013
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some feature changes, major infrastructure improvements to make the system more stable, dependable and extensible, some minor toolbar improvements, and fixing bugs.

A new form parsing library for language characters in Parsoid caused the corruption of pages containing diacritics for about an hour two weeks ago. Relatively few pages at the English Wikipedia were affected, but this created immediate problems at some other Wikipedias, sometimes affecting several dozen pages. The development teams for Parsoid and VisualEditor apologize for the serious disruption and thank the people who reported this emergency at VisualEditor/Feedback and on the public IRC channel, #mediawiki-visualeditor.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:


 * Accidental deletion of infoboxes and other items: You now need to press the Delete or Backspace key twice to delete a template, reference or image. The first time, the item becomes selected, and the second time, it is removed.  The need to press the delete key twice should make it more obvious what you are doing and help avoid accidental removals of infoboxes and similar (bug 55336).
 * Switch from VisualEditor to the wikitext editor: A new feature lets you make a direct, one-way editing interface change, which will preserve your changes without needing to save the page and re-open it in the wikitext editor (bug 50687). It is available in a new menu in the action buttons by the Cancel button (where the "Page Settings" button used to be). Note that this new feature is not currently working in Firefox.
 * Categories and Languages are also now directly available in that menu. The category suggestions drop-down was appearing in the wrong place rather than below its input box, which is now fixed. An incompatibility between VisualEditor and the deployed Parsoid service that prevented editing categories and language links was fixed.
 * File:, Help: and Category: namespaces: VisualEditor was enabled for these namespaces the on all wikis (bug 55968), the Portal: and Viquiprojecte: namespaces on the Catalan Wikipedia (bug 56000), and the Portal: and Book: namespaces on the English Wikipedia (bug 56001).
 * Media item resizing: We improved how files are viewed in a few ways. First, inline media items can now be resized in the same way that has been possible with block ones (like thumbnails) before. When resizing a media item, you can see a live preview of how it will look as you drag it (bug 54298). While you are dragging an image to resize it, we now show a label with the current dimensions (bug 54297). Once you have resized it, we fetch a new, higher resolution image for the media item if necessary (bug 55697). Manual setting of media item sizes in their dialog is nearly complete and should be available next week. If you hold down the shift key whilst resizing an image, it will now snap to a 10 pixel grid instead of the normal free-hand sizing. The media item resize label now is centered while resizing regardless of which tool you use to resize it.
 * Undo and redo: A number of improvements were made to the transactions system which make undoing and redoing more reliable during real-time collaboration (bug 53224).
 * Save dialogue: The save page was re-written to use the same code as all other dialogs (bug 48566), and in the process fixed a number of issues. The save dialog is re-accessible if it loses focus (bug 50722), or if you review a null edit (bug 53313); its checkboxes for minor edit, watch the page, and flagged revisions options now layout much more cleanly (bug 52175), and the tab order of the buttons is now closer to what users will expect (bug 51918). There was a bug in the save dialog that caused it to crash if there was an error in loading the page from Parsoid, which is now fixed.
 * Links to other articles or pages sometimes sent people to invalid pages. VisualEditor now keeps track of the context in which you loaded the page, which lets us fix up links in document to point to the correct place regardless of what entry point you launched the editor from—so the content of pages loaded through   and   both now have text links that work if triggered (bug 48915).
 * Toolbar links: A bug that caused the toolbar's menus to get shorter or even blank when scrolled down the page in Firefox is now fixed (bug 55343).
 * Numbered external links: VisualEditor now supports Parsoid's changed representation of numbered external links (bug 53505).
 * Removed empty templates: We also fixed an issue that meant that completely empty templates became impossible to interact with inside VisualEditor, as they didn't show up (bug 55810).
 * Mathematics formulae: If you would like to try the experimental LaTeX mathematics tool in VisualEditor, you will need to opt-in to Beta Features. This is currently available on Meta-wiki, Wikimedia Commons, and Mediawiki.org. It will be available on all other Wikimedia sites on 21 November.
 * Browser testing support: If you are interested in technical details, the browser tests were expanded to cover some basic cursor operations, which uncovered an issue in our testing framework that doesn't work with cursoring in Firefox; the Chrome tests continue to fail due to a bug with the welcome message for that part of the testing framework.
 * Load time: VisualEditor now uses content language when fetching TemplateData information, so reducing bandwidth use, and users on multi-language or multi-script wikis now get TemplateData hinting for templates as they would expect (bug 50888).
 * Reuse of VisualEditor: Work on spinning out the user experience (UX) framework from VisualEditor into oojs-ui, which lets other teams at Wikimedia (like Flow) and gadget authors re-use VisualEditor UX components, is now complete and is being moved to a shared code repository.
 * Support for private wikis: If you maintain a private wiki at home or at work, VisualEditor now supports editing of private wikis, by forwarding the Cookie: HTTP header to Parsoid ( set to true) (bug 44483).  (Most private wikis will also need to install Parsoid and node.js, as VisualEditor requires them.)

Looking ahead: If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * VisualEditor will be released to some of the smaller Wikipedias on 02 December 2013. If you are active at one or more smaller Wikipedias where VisualEditor is not yet generally available, please see the list at VisualEditor/Rollouts.
 * Public office hours on IRC to discuss VisualEditor with Product Manager James Forrester will be held on Monday, 2 December, at 1900 UTC and on Tuesday, 3 December, at 0100 UTC. Bring your questions.  Logs will be posted on Meta after each office hour completes.
 * In terms of feature improvements, one of the major infrastructure projects affects how inserting characters works, both using your computer's built-in Unicode input systems and through a planned character inserter tool for VisualEditor. The forthcoming rich copying and pasting feature was extended and greater testing is currently being done.  Work continues to support the improved reference dialog to quickly add citations based on local templates.

Please comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear WP:RFD participant
Hello Thryduulf,

I just wanted to let you know that it looks like DumbBOT, the bot that creates the new WP:RFD subpages, as well as posting the link onto Redirects for discussion, is not functioning. This bot has not made any edits since November 23. I recently had to transclude Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 24 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 25 onto WP:RFD; they were never there until I added their transclusions. Also, the bot usually creates the subpages a few days in advance, and has not been doing that either; I went ahead and created the subpages up until December 1st.

I let the bot's owner, User:Tizio, know about DumbBOT's malfunctioning. It looks like it might have been shut off, but I cannot be for certain. Either way, I wanted to give you this "heads-up" in case the daily pages might need to be created and transcluded manually. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"WTF?" regarding an RfD close
Regarding your close here, particularly your statement "almost all of which were not actually tagged for deletion", when I look I see that almost all are still tagged for deletion. Only T:WPAF and T:P2 seem to have actually been untagged during the discussion.

I also can't help but feel you didn't really read through the discussion, either, in your haste to complain about the off-topic discussion of the "T:" pseudo-namespace in general and to proclaim that they should all be nominated individually. There are only two people making arguments to keep any of the redirects, and IMO one of those is based on a misunderstanding coming from the off-topic discussion.

Given the above, I urge you to revert your flawed close of that discussion. Anomie⚔ 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "not all tagged", it seems that the rfd template is not always showing up on popups (odd that it's inconsistent), I'll amend that. The main point however, is that because there is so much off topic discussion it disguises there is nowhere a consensus about any of the individual redirects. Those that are made however include good reasons to keep the redirects (at least some are used) and refutations of some of the delete opinions (they are used for finding the actual template not transcluding, meaning the fact they aren't transcluded not particularly relevant) and good reasons to delete (mainly that at least some are not used). Comments like "we don't need this." are not very helpful because it doesn't say why and are refuted by other people saying "I use this". Overall I cannot see in the relevant discussion any consensus for either keeping or deleting any of the specifically listed redirects, particularly as some comments relate to an unspecified subset. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to prove a negative. We look at hit counts and find that they are barely used to the point where any real usage is lost in the noise of Googlebot and such, then one person (literally one) comes along and says he uses one redirect and it makes no consensus? Sigh. Anomie⚔ 20:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Read my other comments as well, and the general principles of RfD where "it's useful" is explicitly a valid argument for keeping (unlike "I like it" at AfD). I haven't looked at the figures for all the redirects, but generally speaking the background noise of bots etc is reckoned to account for around 2-4 hits a month at most (you do sometimes see redirects with 0 hits). At least one of the redirects was quoted as getting hits in the high double figures, which is nowhere near unused. However my close was based on the balance of all the relevant arguments presented at the discussion, not just the ones you agree with, and it was "no consensus" not "keep". If you still think they should be deleted, then there is nothing stopping you from nominating again. I even offered a suggested way forward that should help get a consensus - i.e. keep it focused. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments about individually relisting are just advice based on no grouped nomination of T: redirects having reached consensus, and experience at RfD that shows that large nominations of redirects to different targets rarely do reach consensus. The only desire is to try and avoid further pointless discussions, personally I don't mind if they are nominated or not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Were this thread not here, I'd have opened it. I too was surprised by the closing reasoning. First there is the "there is virtually no discussion about the individual redirects". Addressed by link are, sometimes extensively: T:OU, T:FAUNA, T:P2, T:WPTECH, T:R from, T:ONES, T:S (all in a delete opinion). I also proved the disfunction of one on a linked created demo-page. How is that not "specific" enough?
 * Then the "meta discussion" that is disadvised as being "relate to an unspecified subset". This is where I say "WTF?". I (I cannot escape the idea that the 'off topic' and 'meta-discussion' closing objections are aimed at my contributions specially; also given that the "consensus" word from a 2007 essay, repeatedly injected by an opponent of me, was accepted as a fact), I build reasoning, a set of arguments, that was about the listed R's. Then, from that general idea, I conclude that deletion is correct for the listed R's for various reasons for the various R's. And some major reasons were are valid for all.
 * Now comes the closer saying something like that general arguments we do not want, you must repeat them for every single proposed R again. (But with "caution against too many concurrent discussions"). What is this? When I bring in a reason that covers all, should I have repeated the whole list? Just to be "specific"? This prerequisition for an XfD is new to me.
 * There is also concluded to exist a "current general consensus" against deletion. I wonder where that came from. Repeatedly an essay was quoted, and there was nothing much else to quote. Of that essay I demonstrated that the opinion was not a conclusion, and anyway was put in there years ago. There is nothing "current".
 * Wholesale recent deletions are here and this (but hey, mentioning that would gain a simple "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" refutal). Then in the above answer the closer also introduces a suggestion that earlier RfDs were supportive for this outcome. Next time, such arguments better be in the nomination/template, beforehand, puhlease. Saves time wasted.
 * "Those that are made however include good reasons to keep" - Two (2) editors have stated a Keep. The second Keep was based on the wrong understanding of the cross-namespace fact, and nothing else. The first Keep (elaborated, by PE) did not specify much individual Redirects either, but somehow that is not relevant, this time the arguments are used.
 * I concur with Anomie that the closing reads like as if the discussion was not read or understood.
 * I especially object to throwing out my reasoning about the bad redirects as "off-topic" and "unhelpful". I find it below standard that a closer, having come to that conclusion, repeatedly states that non-relevant arguments keep them from seeing the essence (which might be a correct observation; but in that case they could give a closing to someone else).
 * Finally, if you want to impose change to the current process of XfD regarding either the format of a nomination or the limited use of arguments in general, then please start a policy discussion at the appropriate venue, like in XfD, beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My closing statement was not aimed at any user in particular, which you can tell by the fact that I did not refer to any users in particular. The nomination was explicitly about whether the listed T: redirects should be deleted, not whether T: redirects in general should be deleted. As was repeatedly pointed out the most recent times that it was discussed the consensus was that at least some were useful and that there was no consensus for a prohibition on their creation or use. It doesn't matter how long ago a consensus was reached - it applies until there is a newer consensus formed, it doesn't somehow expire. Consensus can change, and older consensuses are often more likely to, but this can only be determined by a new discussion.
 * Yes, you argued about specific redirects, but not everybody agreed with you. In particular your proving that transclusion didn't work was argued to be not relevant to way the redirect was used (remember these are redirects to templates not templates), and your opinion alone does not demonstrate consensus.
 * I am not imposing any changes to the process at XfD, you are free to renominate as a batch of all these redirects (or any other set) again if you wish. I was simply noting that this nomination did not arrive at a consensus, but that a future nomination organised a different way would be more likely to reach consensus - which is surely what everybody wants? Some batch nominations can work when they are focused on a clear set and the discussion stays on focus, but that did not happen here. I am not prohibiting or attempting to prohibit any arguments at all, merely noting that arguments unrelated to the redirects being discussed were not helpful and that a future nomination with the same arguments would be less likely to arrive at consensus than one that focused on the redirects being discussed. Do feel free to take this to deletion review if you want, but having looked again at the discussion I still do not see consensus to delete those specific redirects, but neither do I see consensus to keep them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate for you to close this Thryduulf, having voted on them in previous debates over the same redirects, and are using your admin role to assert that the consensus reached last time (with you as a participant, almost two years ago) overrides what appears to be a clear new consensus, albeit on a small set of these cross-namespace redirects. Unfortunately the wording used throughout your close strongly suggests you are closing based on a strong position held on the topic rather than the content of the discussion.  Please let another admin close it. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * RE Thryduulf
 * My closing statement was not aimed at any user in particular, which you can tell by the fact that I did not refer to any users in particular. You did not specify user names, but you did specify users by their arguments: "unhelpful meta discussion about the use of T: prefixes in general", but when an editor writes "calling it a 'cross-namespace redirect' is misleading", incorrectly, you do not use that argument. This way my arguments were rejected explicitly in one stroke, while wrong arguments are still weighing in. The same can be said for the overstated "consensus": not thrown out (more on this later). You also have used the comment that it is not the venue to discuss the deletion of an entire pseudo-namespace, which is a malversion of my arguments (you did not find). From all this I feel & read that only my arguments were targeted off-topic.


 * ... not whether T: redirects in general should be deleted. This is bs. I reasoned like: "a T: redirect is bad in mainspace, so these twelve should all be deleted". Plain sound reasoning. I did use argumental examples in some places, but I did not, nowhere, argue that other, non-listed Rs are to be deleted. It was someone else who expanded it into too wide -- not me. Keep'er "Technical 13", I admid this is a third Keep'er, invokes an "WP:NS#Aliases". But this time it must be deemed not too general (I can not follow, but I must conclude that). If "Keep" individual pages were reasoned to be kept, why not conclude the the others are to go? Requirement for individual mentioning only works one way?
 * Also, in one point you complain that there was "no discussion about the individual redirects". Well, that could also be because an argument applies to the whole list (a logic you disallowed explicitly). Then, when I do point to individually addressed Rs (here above, linked), you do not see a contradiction in that. Even worse, when I do demonstrate there are Rs named specifically, you respond here with but not everybody agreed with you. This does not undo my point that individual templates were addressed. Confusingly, here you are jumping the reasoning.
 * As was repeatedly pointed out the most recent times that it was discussed the consensus was that at least some were useful and that there was no consensus for a prohibition on their creation or use. Here it is you introducing arguments from *outside* the RfD list at hand. Earlier RfD's outcomes as an argument? How am I allowed to argue with that? WhenI use an argument involving general sanity (not even stepping outside this RfD), it ends up in the bin. And, above I linked tot two more recent R deletion conclusions (a G6 "non-controversial" speedy! March 2013, and a full RfD-list deletion in December 2010), that contradict your reasoning. Also you write T: as a prefix or the use of such prefixes in general in the closing and XfD not RfD here. That is an expansion of the topic beyond RfD. Why is that allowed?
 * It doesn't matter how long ago a consensus was reached - it applies until there is a newer consensus formed, it doesn't somehow expire.and Consensus can change, and older consensuses are often more likely to, but .... No consensus was reached. Repeat: there is no consensus. You are repeating an editors' 2007 injection -not a conclusion- into an essay. With that, indeed it is irrelevant how long ago the irrelevance was written: today it is still irrelevant. II note that you took over this bogus claim from an editor. As for old or new 'consensus': can an admin research & report how many T:-redirect were deleted without RfD, over the years? Of course, they leave almost no trace for non-admins. But I'd like to see the numbers & arguments for all T:-redirect deletions since template space was introduced. Some 'consensus' must be visible in there too. There is no consensus. So there is no argument from that  non-existent consensus. And don't blame me for introducing "history" as a reason.


 * Yes, you argued about specific redirects, but not everybody agreed with you. Out of logic. Why do you say this? You concluded that there was no individual targeting (and check that the nom is addressing them by listing them, and that the nom is detailing arguments very specific). The I point to them, and you jump to arguments. Did you or did you not see them when closing?


 * In particular your proving that transclusion didn't work was argued to be not relevant to way the redirect was used (remember these are redirects to templates not templates), and and your opinion alone does not demonstrate consensus. A catch 22 you created. First you complain that no individual Rs were mentioned, then I point to one that was already there, and then you say: but that is not consensus. Yeah, and what did you expect, of an argument??? You only accept arguments that somehow magically are 'consensus' beforehand? Then you even go one step further: saying like "that is not the topic". Well, your technical thing here about Redirects is not part of the discussion, so should not be added by the closer afterwards (contrary tech arguments are there - didn't you see?). Above this, another example of what you declare off-topic afterwards. How should I have brought forward my argument to be acceptable for you (he asked rethorically)?


 * I am not imposing any changes to the process at XfD, you are free to renominate as a batch of all these redirects (or any other set) again if you wish. Yes you are. In your closing you describe the structure of this RfD as bad. You say against too many concurrent discussions, and generating meta discussion (as a bad thing; blanked arguments for all listed you did not accept), organised a different way. Sure. Said afterwards, it is of no use. If you blame the structure for you conclusion, what should I have said? I can only repeat that you, once again, say that you did not see through the discussion (with or without declaring arguments off-topic).
 * In general, your prescription of a structure & handling for a future case I can not use as an argument to the next closer ("but Thryd said x would be read if ...", ).
 * I was simply noting that this nomination did not arrive at a consensus. Just that? No directions for future nominations? No tossing out arguments before concluding? No self-criticism at all?
 * I am not prohibiting or attempting to prohibit any arguments at all [yes you threw some out; while IMO on-topic as said earlier], merely noting that arguments unrelated to the redirects being discussed were not helpful [your limitation, not mine] and that a future nomination with the same arguments would be less likely to arrive at consensus than one that focused on the redirects being discussed. You did not act along this. You have reduced the topic to "Redirects", while they are also systematically CNRs, and redirect to Template space. It is not your job to cut these statements out of the discussion.
 * In general. Some weird reasoning is used by the closer (in this page too). It involved stating some "consensus", disallowing general arguments for all Redirects listed, introducing out-of-RfD arguments as a base for conclusion, stating afterwards that the "structure" itself was a problem, and also finding that no individual R's were addressed. All this still supports my impression that the actual RfD thread was not read or understood well. I now add that it appears exterior arguments were taking over. It also fits the point stated by John Vandenberg above, that earlier and before you had worked for a certain outcome.
 * And, since no serious thinking was applied to the discussion itself, again in this talkpage, I feel abused. -DePiep (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't follow much of what you have written there, and I seriously don't understand how you can feel abused? I can assure you that I did not close this lightly or flippantly. I have looked at the discussion yet again and I still don't see how it can be said to have reached a consensus either way. Given that John Vandenberg has suggested that I may not have been neutral in this I am going to take it to DRV myself. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See Deletion review/Log/2013 November 26. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Thryduulf. I should have time to comment on it tomorrow. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December edition
Please feel free to suggest any changes or add any requests such as images for the gallery. If you also want to have a try for the new year's edition or any future editions, please do not hesitate to ask. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping
Your signature here didn't seem to work for some reason. Thanks for the comment, btw Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the heads-up, the reason was very simple - I had a &lt;nowiki&gt; without a corresponding &lt;/nowiki&gt;! Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)
You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK  [•] 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)