User talk:Thryduulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Awards
Stubsensor award.jpg
For your help with April 21, 2005 Stubsensor cleanup project you are hereby given the Stubsensor award.
I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 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)
For your excellent contributions to Wikipedia - it is those little things that make all the difference :-) --HappyCamper 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am giving you this banner star for all of your work at WP:RFD - Tideflat (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Trophy.png
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)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png
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)
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 Tonywalton Talk 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Barnstar Hires.png
The Redirect Barnstar
I hereby award User:Thryduulf this shiny Redirect Barnstar for their excellent work at WP:RFD. Lenticel (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png
The Technical Barnstar
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)
Original Barnstar Hires.png
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)
Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png
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)
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
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)

Real Life Barnstar.jpg
The Real Life Barnstar
Yay! You're here at the [Wikimedia UK] office! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Crown of Portuguese Prince.png
Survey King!
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)
Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png
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)
Peace Barnstar 6.png
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)
Special Barnstar Hires.png
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)
Real Life Barnstar.jpg
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)
Real Life Barnstar.jpg
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)
Photographer Barnstar.png
The Photographer's Barnstar
For your extra effort in providing photos for an article that another Wikipedian is working on. Exemplary teamwork! Face-smile.svg w.carter-Talk 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png
'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)
Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen () 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban ed17[edit]

It may not be as controversial, but the China floods went up [1] fairly quickly, though the article was ok for a disaster at that point [2], the comments "503 words is enough to post this important news" suggest less interest in ITN posting norms than on expedient posting. --107.77.236.91 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that you chose to log out, IP. 503 words was after an expansion by Cyclonebiskit, so I believed it was long enough to be featured in the template. Anyway, I'm not here for this—Thryduulf, I'm headed offline for a multiple-hour drive to a celebration I've promised to attend, as I alluded to the AN discussion. Please forgive me for not responding to points raised in a timely manner. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@107.77.236.91: feel free to make comments (for, against or neutral) in the AN discussion. I'm not going to respond in detail here to avoid fragmenting the discussion (which would benefit nobody).
@The ed17: Nobody is required to be on Wikipedia every day, and I've got no reason not to assume good faith that you will respond when you can. Enjoy your celebration. 13:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC). subtract 160 and resign to fix the ping Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This won't work, it needs to be a new post - modifying an existing post won't notify. So, my edit will notify The ed17 where yours didn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

MP talk[edit]

Re your advice to "use WP:ERRORS for this sort of update as it will get updated quicker" – to be more candid, I've found that sometimes efforts to improve things there are dismissed, even ridiculed, as "not an error" and deleted. Today, for example, I noiticed that the composer Max Reger is was highlighted in both TFA and in the leading DYK item directly below it. But I didn't feel like going to WP:ERRORS with this observation due to past negative experiences there. Sca (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably wise as it's not an error. You'll see the same again soon when Pokemon Go features in ITN and DYK. Again, there are no guidelines or policies that seem to be violated here, particularly as there is little collaboration between the various MP sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Sca (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN/DC RFC[edit]

Thanks for sticking with this mess. Cheers. --107.77.233.165 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If there is one thing that really annoys me it's things idling out and getting left unresolved rather than a decision being made one way or the other. It was probably the most frustrating thing from my time on arbcom! Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete RFD closure[edit]

You closed Eπανάσταση (Mixed Latin/Greek letters) as move without redirect, but two of the mixed-script redirects still exist (Kόμμα των Ελευθεροφρόνων and Oрганический регламент). Gorobay (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up - I did move them to all single script tiles but it seems that the option to not leave a redirect behind didn't work for those two cases (most likely as I forgot to uncheck the box). I've deleted them both now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • These redirects are proving peskier than I thought. I think four of them will need to be moved again (also without leaving redirects):
Κόμμα των Nεοφιλελευθέρων (N is Latin) -> Κόμμα των Νεοφιλελευθέρων
Νίκανδρος ο Kολοφώνιος (K is Latin, missing diacritic on o) -> Νίκανδρος ὁ Κολοφώνιος
Οἰδίπoυς τύραννoς (both o's are Latin) -> Οἰδίπους τύραννος
Кapaдарья (apa is Latin) -> Карадарья
I've used http://unicode.scarfboy.com/ to check that. Thanks! Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've done those. Hopefully that's it all sorted now! Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Default to keep[edit]

Thryduulf, thank you so much for dealing with the very bottom of the RfD backlog!

Concerning Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_6#Jeopardisers though, I don't think anybody wanted to keep the redirects except for jeopardise and jeopardize, so "default to keep" probably isn't the appropriate outcome for the rest of them? Deryck C. 11:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody did want those kept as is, but the opinions and arguments were split about equally between retargetting to the disambig, soft redirecting to Wiktionary and deleting them and none of those courses of action had more consensus than either of the others. Defaulting to keep pleases nobody, but I'm not sure what other options are available beyond supervoting or picking one at random? Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'd try to find the most plausible outcome - what you'd call "supervoting" I call "closer's discretion" Face-wink.svg. But I guess the "no consensus, do nothing for now" close doesn't preclude individual editors from changing them. Thanks for the explanation. Deryck C. 15:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel[edit]

I am not understanding this close merge (but keep for now) did you mean keep but open to merge later? In other words anyone can merge this? I am not seeing a consensus for merge, I see no consensus any merge should require further discussion. Valoem talk contrib 16:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a very clear consensus to merge the two articles (regardless of the bolded word, most people supported merging now or later), at least until it needs to be split out for WP:SIZE reasons. Currently it is borderline whether merging would cause WP:SIZE issues and it is likely that recent developments will lead to more information being added to Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, meaning it would be merged then split again very soon after (wasting everybody's time). If in a couple of weeks there have been no significant changes to either article then it can be merged based on the consensus in the AfD, however if there has been significant expansion or the amount of duplicated material reduces then a new consensus to merge will need to happen.
To put it another way, there is consensus that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel is not notable independent of the attacks in Nice, but whether there is enough written about him in that context to justify a spinout article for length reasons is borderline. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I still see no consensus as a better close, those have also highlighted WP:PERP as a reason for inclusion per, "the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities" and CRM#2 "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role", also other editors pointed out WP:SPINOUT citing extended coverage. The strongest argument against is WP:TOOSOON since AfD is not a vote but based on guideline based rationale. I am not seeing consensus on this one. Since it hasn't been merged DRV seems unusual I would recommend changing to no consensus or keep (but possible merge later). The general issue is that I do not know what is going to happen with the reasoning you left. If someone bold merges can an editor bold unmerge? I just think its is going to complicate things going forward. Valoem talk contrib 18:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There was definitely a consensus to merge based on the number and strength of all the arguments made. Yes it could be boldly merged based on the result of the AfD and it could just as validly then be boldly unmerged because of WP:SIZE. I don't understand why this is either unclear or a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Closes are suppose to prevent edit wars and bring closure to a discussion, there is a huge gray area with these people as to whether or not they should be covered separately, on one hand they pass WP:GNG in terms of sources, on the other hand some do not want Wikipedia to give undue weight to a criminal. This close could lead to edit warring I think further discussion should be required for a merge hence no consensus. Valoem talk contrib 19:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus that the subject was not notable enough for a standalone article for any reason other than article size. Article size is not static and so needs to be judged based on the amount of information in both articles at the given time. If there was less it would be a clear merge, if there was more it would be a clear keep split but only on size reasons - at the moment it's very borderline, but there is never any justification for edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist from Nice[edit]

Even though in my opinion the article should be redirected, I need to say that you did a very good job closing this AfD, you carefully studied all the comments and analyzed those policy related... Unlike Breivik, the terrorist is dead, so it's much less likely that we'll have more coverage on him, as you pointed out only about his possible association with terrorist groups, but as far as I know the police has confirmed that he acted alone. So, should I re-propose the article if the status quo remain unchanged in two months or so? Regards, Alex Vs6507 20:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If in a couple of months you still think it should be merged then start a requested merge discussion not an AfD. There is unlikely I think to be consensus just to redirect without merging. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Where do I start a merge discussion? Didn't know of that... Vs6507 23:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM) which should tell you everything you need to know. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Merges are WP:NOTRM; that suggests Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (WP:PM), but I think that Wikipedia:Merging (WP:MERGE) is better. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Redrose64, of course merges and moves are not the same thing! Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53[edit]

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 99, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge[edit]

This is just a reminder that Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge kicks off today, with the first subject being Bristol. Please remember to post entries under your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge/Bristol. You are receiving this message because you are listed as a participant in the challenge.

Happy editing! --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The first leg is Bristol. Names are to be added at the bottom of the Bristol page and articles listed. Please also make sure that you add entries you improve/start to the main list on the main page. There will be £10 to win each day for the most points accumulated and then the winner of the county crowned after three days. The overall winner will be decided from the points accumulated from each county round. If you're not interested in winning anything and want to contribute anything you want from the West Country this is fine too though. Best of luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orange County[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orange County. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brotha (Angie Stone song)[edit]

Hello Thryduulf,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Brotha (Angie Stone song) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fixed that for you, as it was clear to anyone who could be bothered to look at the history before tagging what Thyduulf was trying to do. Jeni (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Jeni. Ubiquity it is important to look at the page history and use common sense before nominating pages for deletion (speedy or otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC) @Ubiquity: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This edit won't have notified Ubiquity. I really must write an explanatory template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I also saw what you were trying to do Thyduulf. But, with you having accomplished that, I thought the redirect seemed very unlikely -- why would someone type in "Brotha (Angie Stone song)" looking for "Brotha"? -- so instead of fixing the redirect, I asked for it to be deleted. I actually considered changing the article to a redirect, and then asking for deletion of the redirect as implausible, but that seemed silly. Now I see maybe I should have. While I'm glad that Jeni also had the common sense to see what you were trying to do, I regret that he was not able to so divine what I was trying to do, and felt the need to call me out about it. ubiquity (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The redirect exists because I moved the page from that title (see the history) as I feel that that is the primary topic for "Brotha". The article was created at that title (which is standard naming scheme when there are multiple songs with the same name) almost certainly because Brotha was in use as a redirect to Sibling - really not useful. Redirects from moves are normally kept for several reasons including preserving edit history and maintaining incoming links, bookmarks, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I have now tagged the above redirect with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and created another such redirect from Brotha (song), which was linked from User:Tassedethe/dabs/songs. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

$27 RfD closing, likely typo[edit]

Hi. I amended your closing of the RfD about $27, changing 27$ to $27, as it looks like a obvious typo (and slightly confusing that the closing reads that a red link was kept :-) Please check the diff. I hope it is better now. - Nabla (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's almost certainly a case of thinking "27 dollars" and typing what I'm thinking literally rather than correctly! Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN[edit]

Had to undo your edit as you broke the template, but I'm on mobile so can't fix it. You removed one too many commenting marks. Stephen 10:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you for catching that and the clear note about what mistake I'd made. I've now fixed it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge[edit]

Hi, if you can flesh out a few stubs or something towards this and add entries at the bottom they'd be very welcome!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto_rapid_transit#Requested_move_25_August_2016[edit]

The discussion on the name of this article has been reopened. Ground Zero | t 17:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Unclearness of your statement (Afd close)[edit]

Sir/madam Thryduulf,
On 24July2016,12:06 you closed the deletion debate concerning article ‘Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack’ with a “result” that I don’t quite understand (and I noticed your advice to someone on 27July that he might specify such problems on your personal Talk page or (your advice on 28July) turn to ‘Wiki:Deletion review’). That ‘result’ you stated consists of an enumeration of three actions:

  1. Merge back the subarticle to the main article '2016 Nice attack';
  2. Include a small sample (of international comments) in the main article;
  3. Add all international comments to Wikiquote.
  • Is that enumeration of three actions to be read as a ‘and-and’ enumeration—meaning you want all those three actions to be taken—or to be read as ‘or-or’—meaning you want one of those actions to be taken?
    • If it is ‘or-or’: who is (allowed) to make the choice between the three?
    • If it is ‘and-and’: wouldn’t action (1) and (2) be incompatible?
  • If anyone’s choice would fall on action (2) (the sample into the main article): which small sample is it that you want to be placed in the main article? Why do you want a small sample placed in the main article?
  • I see in that Afd debate 21 people (20 of them with serious motivation, mostly in their own words) voting/arguing for keeping the complete subarticle ‘Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack’ as it was, while in total 40 people seriously voted and/or argued in the discussion: 12 for ‘delete’; 6 for ‘trim and merge’ (N.B.: it’s unclear which problem five of them try to solve with trim+merge, as they don’t mention any concrete problem. The sixth voter for ‘trim+merge’ gives a clear argument but that seems more to plead for ‘delete’); 2 for ‘keep or merge’ — making those 20 (plus 2 keep/merge?) the majority. Why don’t you acknowledge that in your conclusion? Could you reconsider your closing conclusion, taking into account the expressed and argued wish of the majority of those that have discussed that Afd nomination? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. The first is what do I mean by my closing statement, and the second is whether my conclusion was correct.
For the first issue, the first two of your bullets are the same action - there was consensus in the discussion to merge a small sample of the international comments into the main article. Which ones to keep is something that needs to be discussed by the editors of the article, I don't have an opinion and even if I did it would not be appropriate for me to express it while speaking in an administrative capacity. If there was a consensus in the AfD discussion about which ones to merge I could report that, but there was very little discussion about specific quotes so there was no consensus for or against the inclusion or exclusion of any individual reaction. The third of your bullets is a recommended action, again based on the consensus of comments in the AfD. I believe the quotes have all been copied/moved, but I haven't checked in detail.
Regarding the second issue, I am getting the impression that you are misunderstanding what AfD is - AFD is not a vote. The outcome of a discussion is not determined by the number of bolded recommendation any option gets but by assessing the relative weight of the arguments presented by those who have commented. I explained my reasoning in detail in my closing statement but you have not mentioned that at all. You are free to take the close to DRV if you still think I've made a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: Merging is not sampling.
Merging in Wiki (action 1) means: restructuring two existing articles into one remaining article. Sampling (action 2) would be in your conclusion(24Jul2016,12:06): taking elements from article ‘Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack’ and place them in article ‘2016 Nice attack’ (while leaving the two separate articles in existence). Clearly these actions (1) and (2) are not identical.
But if one first merges the two articles (= action 1), there will exist no old article ‘Reactions’ any longer from which one can take samples to put anywhere else. And if one first takes samples from article ‘Reactions’ into article ‘Nice attack’ (= action 2) and afterward merges the two articles into one article (= action 1), one might as well have skipped that sampling action (action 2).
So, what was it that you concluded to on 24July: action (1) as I described it here above on 3 September, or action (2), or both? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The consensus in the discussion was as I clearly stated: Merge, including in the merged article a selection of the reactions. The details are to be worked out by the editors of the articles and if you are disagreeing with how this is done then you need to do this on the talk page of the destination article. As AfD closed I have no say in what gets merged, my job was simply to read all the comments in the article and determine the consensus of those comments. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

ARCA[edit]

I am surprised to see opera in your comment. Opera is the one topic I know in classical music where the availability of an infobox is mentioned in the project guidelines, and where discussions were civil already in 2013. I think the wisdom on the project talk might be adopted in general, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As discussed yesterday[edit]

Ordinary people from ordinary state comprehensives (like the one that I went to) can rise (almost) to the top. See Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, particularly ref. 4. What the article doesn't say is that Zoë is married to Dennis Skinner, son of Dennis Skinner; and she is the elder daughter of Angela Billingham. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The notices that you saw in Broad Street, Oxford concerning filming: it was Transformers: The Last Knight. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New York[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

East London meet up: Tuesday 27th September 2016[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that the East London meetups are starting again: East London meetup, 7. Leutha (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong deletion of art. ‘International comments on the 2016 Nice attack’[edit]

On 8Sep2016,14:45, you have deleted article ‘International comments on the 2016 Nice attack’ which had been created that day as subarticle to 2016 Nice attack. At 14:48 you also removed the link in ‘2016 Nice attack’ to that deleted article. In both edits your edit summary was almost identical, saying: ‘International comments on the 2016 Nice attack’ was a “recreation of a page/article that was deleted per/after deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack”.

That is not true. No page has been deleted per/after (as consequence of) that AfD discussion. I therefore suggest, you now revert those two of your edits of 14:45 and 14:48 on 8Sep, giving back to Wikipedia the information in that deleted article that many Wikipedians have worked on and apparently consider Wiki-worthy.

AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack did not result in a consensus for deletion, and no administrator at the moment of closing the AfD has decided/stated that it did. Consequently that AfD did also not lead to any article’s deletion. The admin on 24Jul2016,12:06 conluded/decided to a consensus for a merge. Consequently, article ‘Reactions…’ has been merged with article ‘Nice attack’ on 8Sep,11:51. Then, as quite usual and good Wiki practice, the old page of ‘Reactions…’ was turned into a REDIRECT to ‘Nice attack’. The resulting merged page ‘Nice attack’ was then 130,000 bytes long and was split up using a subarticle, which is quite usual and good Wiki practice. That subarticle was International comments on the 2016 Nice attack (which you with aforementioned untrue motivation have deleted on 8Sept2016 at 14:45). --Corriebertus (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I was the administrator who closed the AfD discussion, so I am well aware of the situation. The new article created was nothing more than a collection of quotes, with less context than the article taken to AFD. The consensus in the AfD discussion was abundantly clear that a collection of quotes was not suitable as an article and that any sub-article from the main one about international reactions must be prose-based not quote-based. You may create International comments on the 2016 Nice attack as a redirect to the main article if you wish. If you want to further contest the deletion of the article that was there, you can do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review as I believe my actions were correct. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Thryduulf. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)