Sorry for the lack of attribution --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of attribution --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
== Clarification request ==
I have filed a request for clarification of ArbCom's decline of Will Beback's ban appeal. The clarification request is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_TimidGuy_ban_appeal|here]]. You are being notified as you recently participated in discussion of this ban appeal. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk5 pillars(KC)
This PSY is awarded for being polite, courteous, and extremely helpful to myself and other users, and as such bieng a blessing for good mental health. Awarded by PhatePunk 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your excellent contributions to Wikipedia - it is those little things that make all the difference :-) --HappyCamper 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving you this banner star for all of your work at WP:RFD - Tideflat (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect Barnstar
is hereby awarded to Thryduulf for all the work put into contributing at Redirects for Discussion and maintaining the navigational parts of the project. Quiet background work that very few see, yet it has a great effect on the projects readers! Thanks for your work in the area, Taelus (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect Barnstar
is hereby awarded to you, Thryduulf, for closing nearly an entire page of discussions, but more importantly, for all of the other thankless jobs that you do. Arbitrarily0(talk) 21:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to echo these thanks, as I think we are some of the only admins who set foot in RfD these days :P. Thanks for helping with the backlog, all the best. --Taelus (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair and Helpful
Thank you so much for helping me with an article (I'm a beginner.) I have no idea what I'm doing but you helped to keep my article up after it was deleted. You also checked back up on it when the references were deleted, I just checked and saw you even helped me on listing them too, I wasn't sure how to do that either. Anyway, thank you. :] Ohthegunsofbrixton (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For exhibiting rational judgement on a certain list which caused considerable overreaction and worse case scenario concerns. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect Barnstar
Thanks for your (re)-explanation of why it [the Selby Wall redirect] was pointing where it was and why it should point to where it's now pointing TonywaltonTalk 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your unfailing patience and kindness dealing with VisualEditor related problems and the users struggling with them :). (also for the fantastic car analogy). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Barnstar
I appreciate I already gave you a barnstar for it, but I've just looked at the feedback page for the first time since stepping off my flight, and wow: you deserve another one :). Thanks for all you've done for the VE project thus far. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For sterling work above and beyond the call of duty at WP:VE/F. You're always there, logging defects, updating replies and always with politeness and calm. NtheP (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You put absolutely hours of work into [the WMUK Members' Survey] and I am so so grateful! Really looking forward to finding out what worked and what didn't and making the results useful to the chapter! Thank you so much! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Arbitration Committee cases are inherently complicated matters. That your analysis of the case resulted in a suggestion widely accepted by participants and arbitrators alike, demonstrates it to be a brilliant idea. Congratulations! MarshalN20 | Talk 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Y'know what... ...Here's a barnstar. Consider this a token of my appreciation, on behalf of the project as a whole, for your contributions to this RfC, and for summarising a horribly complicated discussion into something that people could understand (and which slightly lessened my headache in closing it!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
Thanks for the MASSIVE amount of work and time you put into the 2013 Membership Survey. It's really excellent and I hope its something [WMUK] builds on :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Real Life Barnstar
Thank you very much for all your hard work on Wikipedia Takes UCL last week. It was an event from which we've taken many lessons and I believe that a good number of people had a very positive experience from it thanks to you and the team you managed to coordinate. Here's to the next one! ToniSant (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Real Life Barnstar
Chris, I'm indebted to you for your help at the Marjon event. Gil asked me to pass on her thanks in particular for your "excellent and clear explanations of the technical aspects of copyright". Next time I'm looking for helpers for an event, you'll be top of my list. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer's Barnstar
For your extra effort in providing photos for an article that another Wikipedian is working on. Exemplary teamwork! w.carter-Talk 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I've got to say, I've seen your comments about the place and you seem one of the more "rational observers" (if you'll pardon the pun) on the site. I think you have a good head on your shoulders. I wish others were like you! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! For your well-thought, detailed, and infuriatingly reasonable close here. Well done once again.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your hard work in the effort to get Robbie Coltrane to RD quality when it appeared doomed to not be included on quality grounds from the start; I award you this barnstar of citations! You recognized how important it was to get Hagrid onto RD owing to the emotional response of people to the beloved actor’s death (even the oppose votes were visibly upset and reluctant about their vote), so you worked hard to make it happen to the glee of the fellow Wikipedians. Well Done! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Minor Barnstar
Hello! While it may be small in the grand scheme of things, I wanted to thank you for drafting the disambiguation page at National and University Library. When I was looking into the title before the RfD, I saw a lot of different possibilities for targets and wasn't sure how to go about compiling them all into one place. It looked quite daunting to me, and to that end, thank you for initiating the first draft of it! (As well as the rest of your assistance at RfD, it is greatly appreciated.) Utopes(talk / cont) 20:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect Barnstar
Thank you for all the work that you do at RfD. Your comments have changed my mind and helped to educate me on numerous occasions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Thryduulf, haven't seen you around in a little while. Hope things are going well for you in meatspace. I can't speak for everyone, but you are missed when you're away. Your efforts and insights are always appreciated. BigNate37(T) 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language redirects
Your name just keeps coming up! The Д. Ловато RfD got me thinking about why this isn't a CSD criterion if consensus is so clearly against these redirects. Well I found a February 2011 CSD discussion on Deletion of foreign redirects and your thoughts on the matter effectively ended the discussion. I wanted to ask you in particular about one thing you said: "…a significant number of people object to their deletion…" Do you think there's still a consensus to keep this sort of redirect? I mean I certainly understand your rational argument for not deleting them, but the impression that the Ловато RfD gave me makes me wonder whether the community at large feels differently. BigNate37(T) 19:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a consensus to keep many redirects that are harmless, but redirects from languages not associated with the article subject are not part of that consensus. However, I don't think that these would make a good speedy deletion criterion because of the difficulty of determining precisely what "not associated" means. Consensus is clear that where there is a connection, the redirect should be kept (e.g. 長野 → Nagano, Nagano).
The Д. Ловато case seems clear cut but it is not always so, nor is it always obvious immediately whether there is a connection or not. For example, does a first generation Serbian American have a connection with the Serbian language? Should Nambawan bigfala emi blong Misis Kwin redirect to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? (it's his name in Bislama, an official language of Vanuatu and thus the Yaohnanen tribe, who worship him as a divine being (see Prince Philip Movement - none of this is in his main article, so would not be apparent to someone doing a quick check for the validity of a speedy nomination). For that matter, should there be a redirect from the name of Elizabeth II in the official languages of all the countries she is head of state of?
To put it slightly differently, there is a consensus that redirects from unconnected foreign languages should be deleted, but there is no clear consensus about what constitutes "unconnected". Also, even when there is unambiguously no connection, I don't really see that foreign language redirects need to be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points. It wasn't obvious to me how broad the spectrum of connections is between article subjects and any given language—I thought it was much more black-and-white. It seems to me that's the biggest reason that there's no definitive codification of consensus on the matter. Of course you're right about the lack of justification for a speedy criterion, as well. I think that's principally a matter of the infrequency of foreign-language redirects and the relatively low time cost of considering them, though. BigNate37(T) 22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least delete the hoax material from the page history?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the hoax material had been added as a section in an existing article, it would just be reverted or removed without deleting old revisions, and if the page had started as an article which was boldy redirected (see also WP:ATD-R) without objection the page history would not be deleted as a matter of course. Accordingly I don't see the benefit in doing otherwise in this case. If you want the history deleted, even if the redirect is kept, then make the case for doing this in the RfD and it will be done if the closing administrator (who wont be me) judges there to be consensus for the action. I can't recall the specific case off the top of my head, but there is precedent for keeping a redirect but deleting the history behind it (I have a vague recollection the BLP or legal issues might have been involved). Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your categorisation of what is, or isn't, a rationale for deletion relies too heavily on policy, I think. (especially because any rationale for deletion can be supported by policy). Indeed, even the guideline is wishy-washy (you might want to delete if ...) - not at the "compelling reasons to delete are, and here's why". The last bit is key - the guideline doesn't provide a reason why you'd want to delete in those cases, so it's up to the nominator to. If they fail to, there's no rationale for deletion. Merely being listed as a reason you might want to doesn't provide a rationale for deletion (beyond "I want to!", perhaps). In comparison, WP:GNG says why we should delete articles that fail GNG (mostly, they're unverifiable, and there's no hope of making them remotely NPOV).
The - uhm - the very short of it is that presumably, you disagreeing with me in the discussions promotes fuller discussion and is thus probably an asset to RfD, and thus reasonably worth your time. If you think you're going to convince me that your overall position is right, and my overall position is wrong, and I just don't understand something - you're wasting your time. I understand the position you're taking, but I reject it as wrong. Saying "This redirect should be deleted because the term doesn't appear in the article" is no more a rationale for deletion than "This redirect should be deleted because cheese is delicious" is a rationale for deletion. Both are just non-sequitars. Either way is fine by me, depends on what your motivations are, I guess. WilyD 10:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give some thought to phrasing in a way that more explicitly critical of the nomination statement, rather than nominator, anyhow. WilyD 13:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge fresher's fair
Hello Thryduulf,
I've bid a stall on behalf of the Cambridge University Wikipedia Society at the Cambridge University fresher's fair, 2-3 October. If you are around, it would be great if you can come and help by staffing the stall for a few hours!
The fair will run, roughly, from 9am to 7pm on the 2nd, and 9am to 4pm on the 3rd; details are yet to be confirmed.[1] You certainly won't be expected to stay the whole day unless you really want to! It'll be a sign-up stall for the campus Wikipedia Society, and we'll give out Wikimedia freebies at the event to promote awareness for Wikipedia-editing and Wikimedia UK.
Please contact me if you're interested in helping, even if it's just a few hours. Thanks! (You're receiving this message because you've signed up for a recent Cambridge meetup - apologies if you aren't around anymore) Deryck C. 22:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a deletion discussion you voted "defer". At first I thought you voted "delete", and if there had been more votes, instead of just yours, I likely would have keep thinking you voted "delete". In the future I recommend using another wording that doesn't look so much like "delete", e.g. "no action". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. I'll try and remember it for the future. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ask permission at RFD to ad {{R from typo}} an obvious typo redirect, you're free to add it yourself. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I posted on you're talk page three times. I'm not staking you, it's just a quiescence. I guess we've both been at RFD allot lately. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry! RfD is where I spend most of my wiki time, it's unusual when consecutive messages on here aren't related to RfD or RfC bot! Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Within the project, discussions included links to London Underground usage data figures not working, Herne Hill station appearing on the main page and Docklands Light Railway usage now being available
Within other related projects, relevant discussions included were on the Olympics, notability of railway magzines, various railway templates, waterways become active routes on Google Maps, bus station categories and notability of a bus type and a bus builder.
Requests
If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor
I'm sorry I missed September but I was rather busy. Enjoy. Simply south......wearing fish for just 6 years 23:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible misunderstanding about disambiguation links
Hi. I was curious about the reverts you made to three articles recently: this edit to the City Liner article, this edit to the Cityliner article, and this edit to the City Line article. In each case, you quote "WP:INTDABLINK". The problem I see is that the guideline mentioned there about "creating links to disambiguation pages" applies to regular wikilinks within articles, and not in disambiguation pages as we are dealing with here. I can't see why intentionally add a piped link to a redirect makes any sense in the three cases here. If you look at the "User Guidelines" section at WP:DABLINKS, however, it does explicitly say that piping should not be used to change the title of disambiguation entry links. Isn't this what you did in your recent edits? I'm not an expert on the intricacies of disambiguation pages, so hopefully you can correct me if I am reading things wrong, but as I understand the guidelines, the linking method currently used is incorrect and unnecessary. I hope you can clear any confusion on my part. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding (and I don't profess to be an expert) is that the point of intentional dab links is to separate out those links that need disambiguating from those that don't.
For example, looking at which articles link to the Mercury disambiguation page[2] there are presently about 23 entries (excluding redirect pages), but 5 of them link via Mercury (disambiguation) showing that only 18 need disambiguation. There is no facility in whatlinkshere to determine whether the link comes from a hatnote or body text, nor for determining how many times a page links to the given target. It's not uncommon for a page to have a link to a dab page from a hatnote and also to entries on that dab page in the body, obviously the hatnote should point to the dab page but the body shouldn't. Direct links and links via redirect pages do show up separately on whatlinks here (e.g. see Talk:City Line at Special:Whatlinkshere/City Line.
Regarding piping of links on dab pages. The point of that is so as not to obscure the title of the destination page, see [3] for a good reason to avoid that. What I did was display the title of the page they'd end up on, rather than the title of the redirect. This is subtly different, but thinking about it now I can see both good and bad points to doing it! If you have a strong opinion and/or want to discuss it further, it'll probably be better to do so somewhere more central than my talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation perhaps?) to get more input. Leave me a link here if you do start such a discussion.
I hope that clears things up, but do say if it doesn't. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that does sort of make sense now. Thanks for taking the time to explain the reasoning. --DAJF (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfD req.
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 4's talk page. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Notability. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help with Demon Stone redirects
Hi there. You commented on my List of Demon Stone characters RfD yesterday. I understand that deleting the history of that article is incorrect, but my concern is that there is a cluster of useless and redundant redirects now:
There was a lot of confusing moving and redirecting done about six years ago with the titles, with the bottom two articles ending up pointing at the top one. Nothing is linked to any of the articles now. Are the last two good candidates for deletion? Or what about moving the article with the history to one of the other two titles as a more likely search term and then deleting the top article? Three orphan redirects seems excessive to me, and I'm trying to get an idea of what the limit is on search term style redirects. The original game's article title is Forgotten Realms: Demon Stone for reference. Thanks. —Torchiesttalkedits 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no limit on the number of redirects to an article - anything that is a likely search term makes a good redirect, and my initial impression is that all of those are going to be searched for, and being an orphan is irrelevant to this. Whatlinkshere can only show links from within the English Wikipedia, any title that exists also has the potential to be linked to from elsewhere on the internet, stored in bookmarks, cited in books, etc. We have no way of knowing what and where these links are, only estimate the likelihood of their existence based on the length of time it has existed, particularly the length of time that the article was at that title, traffic volumes and the usefulness of the title as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Um, Malleus and I have had no interaction aside one brief one 3-4 months ago. If he needs so many interaction bans with so many others, perhaps the best thing to do is ban him outright? The arbitration committee is trying to reign in the excesses Malleus has presented the community...if the community fails to handle it themselves as they have. Your suggestions took a lot of time to write up, but it seems like an awful lot of compromise and accomodations for one editor.--MONGO 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not so much MF, but the heat that surrounds everything he does - the comments both of you made on that page regarding the other did nothing but generate more heat. If you don't interact with him then you will not be inconvenienced by any interaction ban. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, you might as well extend interaction bans between him and at least a dozen more editors....maybe 2 dozen. Why does the website have to make such an adjustment? In a perfect world, Malleus would comply with our policies and stop insulting other editors...I would much prefer to have a good partnership with him, and even some occasionally strong but polite disagreements with him...but myself and a long list of others (many of which simply cannot stand to chime in now as they have given up hope, or are disgusted by the drama) have found him uncompromising and unwilling to adhere to our policies.--MONGO 21:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind giving him mentors (I debated using the term "moderators" but chose mentors to fit in with previous arbcom resolutions) is that it allows his language to be tempered by others if he doesn't do it himself. It's not intended as a long-term solution, but as a way to reduce all the heat so that we can find the long-term way forward without drama. We should make the effort because outside of the civility drama he is a bloody good contributor. The problem is that he uses robust language, and doesn't respond well to the way he is being used by some as the poster child for all that is evil in the eyes of those who want a new civility policy (rightly or wrongly, but it has become an obsession with some), which spills over into his interactions with other editors who criticise him, his words or his actions, causing more heat and fanning the flames. The mentors would act as a buffer between him and critics, and between him and those trying to use him for their own ends (hence allowing the mentors to put interaction bans on those who bait him). A big reason for making interaction bans mutual is that I believe that one-sided bans rarely work (they unfortunately seem to encourage baiting and sniping in many cases) - this is not restricted to just MF's case but more widely as well. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have said elsewhere that I have previously gone out of my way to avoid Malleus...the word of note there is avoid. I have avoided him to help the website maintain a harmonious editing environment. But when I see him cussing, name calling, insulting, barking threats and using intimidation tactics like some school bully, I get disgusted. I'm middle aged and have been on the website as MONGO since 2005...I shouldn't have to tip-toe around him on pages I have had watchlisted for eons. This is my website too and I'm not the one calling other editors twats, cunts, assholes and making threats...he is. I deeply respect your contributions and your ability to AGF regarding Malleus...but I simply cannot do so...I wish I could, but I cannot.--MONGO 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your detailed and well thought-through proposal is very sensible. I would support it there, but that forum is meant to be "not a discussion". Thank you for trying to find a middle way. If only this, or something similar, had been suggested by someone 24 hours ago - it is unfortunate that some ArbCom members seem to have rather shot themselves in the foot over this (and with a boomerang, apparently... quite a neat trick.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
huh?
On one hand, I don't care about an interaction restriction, because (afaik) I've not intereacted with mf prior to him attacking me at the arb page.
On the other hand, I did nothing wrong there, and stayed WP:CIVIL.
(And to be honest, what I initially said, was little different than what many of MF's supporters said.)
So I'm curious why you suggest I should be sanctioned? - jc37 16:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The impression I got from the interaction between you and MF on that page, and others comments on that interaction, was that it was not producing anything other than heat. The idea is to remove all sources of heat from the issue with significant restrictions that would be harsh, see also my comments to Mongo above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your suggestion, all an editor needs do to get someone an interaction restriction is to attack them? Sounds like penalising the victim.
But I respect your intent - "let's see what we can do to reduce this rise of emotions".
Anyway, it looks like the arbs have been busy today, and we may see a different result than what was looking inevitable yesterday. - jc37 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kaliningrad Oblast was played in the main section of the expansive grid. Are we allowed to repeat words from the main in the branches? I was going to remove it but thought I'd check first. HidingT 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it isn't defined in the rules of the game. The smaller grids are consistently described as branches however, and Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun/Word Association#Repeating words says that branches are independent as far as repeating words are concerned, at least for the main game, so I think that my unintentional repetition is allowable here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! HidingT 17:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fails notability. Article has not had any significant edits since it was created more than one year ago, and has been tagged for notability for most of that time. Only claims to notability are a video contest win almost a decade ago and two web=posted videos.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
For exhibiting rational judgement on a certain list which caused considerable overreaction and worse case scenario concerns. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the face of the irrational panic, something important seems to have been overlooked by most of them in that having an open category system is potentially far more damaging than a single list which is under scrutiny on watchlists, even protected. Anybody can slop the category on any biography they don't like, and many of course are off the wiki radar and might go undetected for a long time. Far worse is the unsourced material about pedophiles in numerous articles. In fact I'd go as far to say that it would actually be less damaging to have a single sourced list and greatly minimizes the possibly of long standing real damaging vandalism. The list existed for nearly a month without a single act of vandalism. I think the categories should be deleted and all entries placed on a sourced list. That this could have been overlooked by the endorsers reveals flaws in logic.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Within the project, discussions included assessments after another year, date vandalism with the London Underground 1973 stock, deletions of Template:Infobox TfL Line and Template:Access icon and the featured article review of the London congestion charge
Within other related projects, relevant discussions included were on InterCity 125, Template:Access icon, unidentified station photo locations in London, LMS Hughes Crab, waterways and railways maps and photo requests of head offices.
Requests
If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor
Of what possible use is the word "in"? "In" what? "In" where? "In" whom? Nothing, nowhere, and nobody, in order. The word "in" refers to nothing, and means nothing; therefore it has no place in the redirect. Winding up a bit, why is this "in" business being perpetuated? Why was it ever added? Please, no snark. I want a serious explanation, or I want it gone.--Lexein (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't understand why you've asked me to explain the closure rather than the person who closed it, but to attempt to answer your questions, I didn't create it so I can't say for certain why it was added. However, the word "in" does make sense when you read the title as "non-free, fair use in [article]". Given that a key part of the NFCC is that fair use material must be associated with, and have a rationale for, a specific article, it is not possible for media to be generically fair use, I presume the template was named to stress this. The template is used on many pages, and people are familiar with it so keeping it benefits the encyclopaedia by enabling them to correctly tag their uploads easily - a Very Good Thing. Finally, you don't get to demand things are deleted - the consensus was that keeping the redirect is better for the encyclopaedia than deleting it, and so it will remain until consensus changes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your re-explanation of why it was pointing where it was and why it should point to where it's now pointing. Please accept the following:
The Redirect Barnstar
Thanks for your (re)-explanation of why it was pointing where it was and why it should point to where it's now pointing TonywaltonTalk 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your comment about the Robotic Richard Simmons. I'm concerned that you've substantially misrepresented what the nominator wrote, and I'd appreciate it if you would take a second look. Best, Mackensen(talk) 19:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
I would like to extend a thank you, as well as a Happy New year, for sorting everything out for WP:TUF. I like how it turned out that the person nominating it ,for whatever their reason was, turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to the essay. Cheers. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Within the project, discussions included the featured article review of the London congestion charge, edits to London Buses route 24, date of publication of a 1938 LU stock emergency equipment diagram, Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube and bus routes in station articles.
Within other related projects, relevant discussions included unidentified station photo locations in London, linking to train station, bus routes in station articles, template font problems, railway route boxes, primary road destinations in infoboxes and River Lee move discussions.
Requests
If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor
When you said at the FfD for this file that "reproductions of the cover (including the headline, etc) are being offered for sale" (I assume Sports Illustrated), did you just mean it was for sale directly by SI (a la here) or by third-parties? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sports Illustrated site is the one I found when searching for which image was used on the cover. I have no idea whether it is also offered for sale by others or not - I didn't know it made difference (does it?). Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know that it matters if others are offering it for sale or not -- I think I was mostly just trying to find out if I had missed something regarding that particular image. Since it's being offered for sale by the copyright holder at all then using it would require sourced critical commentary about the image/cover itself, which may be possible but it's a higher hurdle than if it wasn't for sale. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there would need to be commentary about the cover, but not necessarily for the image that forms part of it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice
Thanks for saying in no uncertain terms that you think I am "nobody" around here. It's one thing to disagree with the point someone makes. It's entirely another to personalise things like that. Guettarda (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry if I've offended you, but please could you link to where I made the comment so that I may review the wording I used. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I've now worked out that it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont. (I will reply there), but for future reference some context is always helpful when leaving these sorts of messages. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the participants in the original Village Pump RFC about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Sorry about the confusion with the misplaced RfD nomination. That was a Twinkle glitch of some sort, but I must confess I have absolutely no idea how it happened. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:A4118 Olchfa Bridge east.jpg listed for deletion
Hi there. When you made this comment at ANI, I was unable to comment because of a pending libel matter exacerbated by Flyer22 which has since been oversighted. Would you be willing to take another look now that I am able to comment? These editors have abused AN/I process before in attempts to censor the medical and legal consensus at hebephilia and similar controversial topics. They know that getting in at AN/I before their victims can defend themselves means a lot of editors will make a decision before all the information is presented. A number of people have revised their opinions once they had more information. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I've commented that you had plenty of time to respond there at WP:ANI; I even told you while I was reverting you that I would be reporting you at WP:ANI if you reverted again. You decided to lay low while the WP:ANI matter was going on. It is not like I knew that you would take so long to reply. And I have not, nor have the editors associated with me that you hate, "abused AN/I process before in attempts to censor the medical and legal consensus at hebephilia and similar controversial topics." You also should not make it seem as though several or even a few editors have changed their positions regarding this matter once you responded/explained your version of events; that is not the case, at least not at WP:ANI. And I appreciate Thryduulf standing by his.Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you two wish to continue this discussion, please use a venue other than my talk page. Further messages not directed at me may be reverted without further comment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Thryduulf
Hey Thryduulf. I noticed that your statement is 710 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request (including responses). Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).
From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good job closing this off; I'm more than happy with your decision. We've a few handfuls of (IMHO) horribly over-redirected-to titles - I'll figure out a better way to present them to XfD before presenting them. - TB (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ward-Nasse Gallery. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this redirect: This was quite a while ago now, but originally I created the Wikipedia Reference Desk article, asserting its notability based on a scholarly article about it. This caused an immediate nomination for deletion, prompting a flurry of discussion on the AFD page from the WP:RD regulars. The consensus seemed to be to redirect to the Wikipedia article, but since WP:RD is on en, I personally thought that the proper redirect was to a section about the Reference Desk that should be in the English Wikipedia article.
Now that a year or so has gone by, I'd say the redirect you have implemented (to WP:RD) seems OK to me, until the Reference Desk qualifies for notability and gets an article written about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Within the project, discussions included the Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube, bus routes in station articles, comparing American pseudo facts with the London Underground, renaming Uxbridge Road station and identifying stations in photographs.
Within other related projects, relevant discussions included colours of railway lines, age of metro systems, coordinates in infoboxes, {{S-line}}, watersports in London, aqueducts, lists of bus, distance measurement of British roads, rail usage figures, the West Coast Main Line, identification and rail freight .
Requests
If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor
Customer satisfaction high as Emirates Air Line carries two million passengers
Barclays Cycle Hire southwest extension construction works begin
Wide-aisle gates at 180 Tube stations means more independent and quicker journeys
DLR carries record-breaking one hundred million passengers in one year
Transport for London team up with policing partners to donate unclaimed bikes to local charity
Below inflation taxi fare increase to take effect - reminder
March
TfL issues OJEU for ticketing and fare collection services beyond 2015
Majority of Taxi and Private Hire licence fees reduced or frozen
Oyster customer services moves to a local rate number
Three new lifts transform accessibility at Crystal Palace station
Transport for London proposes a new Sunday service for bus route B12
Transport for London urges teenagers to 'Stop Think! Live' on the road
Her Majesty The Queen, HRH Duke of Edinburgh and HRH Duchess of Cambridge visit Baker Street Underground station as LU celebrates 150 years of serving London
New lifts for Edgware Road (Bakerloo line) station
TfL launches competition to find operator to run Crossrail services
Transport for London launches competition to create accessibility apps
'Crossrail for the bike' in Mayor's £913m cycling plan
Emirates Air Line to close for one week for planned maintenance
Third public consultation results for Northern line extension confirms strong support for Tube link
TfL opens the door to innovative ideas
Thames Clippers to operate enhanced River Bus services between Putney and Blackfriars
Tube customer satisfaction hits record high as strong reliability performance maintained
Within the project, discussions included the Metropolitan Railway being TFA to mark the 150th anniversary of the tube, bus routes in station articles, comparing American pseudo facts with the London Underground, renaming Uxbridge Road station and identifying stations in photographs.
Within other related projects, relevant discussions included a dispute over railway systems, various discussions on railway lines, station categories, historical station usage data, identifying train locations, train timetables, images, colours, a reliable source in road articles, road junction templates, signs, boundaries, referencing Wikipedia, deletions of lists of bus routes and a proposed official bus route guide.
Requests
If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor
Hiya, would just like to request further discussion regarding WP:RFD for Mojo. I'm still learning :D All the best Charon123able (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing "where" to merge the information really doesn't matter considering literally all of this information is already in the four other articles specified. The page is just a copy of all that information. If you feel the consensus was that the article should merged into another one, then just deleting it would carry out the consensus considering there's no extra information to add to any of the other articles. Feedback☎ 20:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
No it wouldn't as some of the merge opinions said that the information should be merged from those other articles to the one that was nominated for deletion so deletion would be prejudicing that, particularly as there was not a consensus for deletion. It is also not clear whether information in those other articles had come from the nominated one, if it has then deletion would violate the attribution requirement of the license. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it'd be appropriate to tell you about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 19#Butcher of the Balkans. You were the only person who voiced a concern about a distinction between a full disambiguation and a partial disambiguation (a primary topic with a hatnote) during the original RfD discussion. Can you please assess the state of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC there now, and tell us if you actually object to full disambiguation? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of attribution --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request
I have filed a request for clarification of ArbCom's decline of Will Beback's ban appeal. The clarification request is here. You are being notified as you recently participated in discussion of this ban appeal. MastCellTalk 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 4's talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg)
