User talk:Thryduulf

Archives

Archive 1 – 3 January 2005 - 20 April 2005
Archive 2 – 21 April 2005 - 12 July 2005
Archive 3 – 14 July 2005 - 6 September 2005
Archive 4 – 7 September 2005 - 6 January 2006
Archive 5 – 9 January 2006 - 15 April 2006
Archive 6 – 18 April 2006 - 10 October 2006
Archive 7 – 10 October 2006 - 21 March 2009
Archive 8 – 16 June 2009 - 1 May 2011
Archive 9 – 2 May 2011 - 20 November 2011
Archive 10 – 24 November 2011 - 17 August 2012
Archive 11 – 21 August 2012 - 24 June 2013
Archive 12 – 25 June 2013 - 12 December 2013
Archive 13 – 19 December 2013 - 30 October 2014
Archive 14 – 1 November 2014 - 19 April 2015
Archive 15 – 24 April 2015 - 1 January 2016
Archive 16 – 2 January 2016 - 16 July 2016
Archive 17 – 16 July 2016 - 1 June 2017
Archive 18 – 3 June 2017 - 9 December 2017
Archive 19 – 14 December 2017 - 29 September 2018
Archive 20 – 29 September 2018 - 20 July 2019
Archive 21 – 22 July 2019 - 9 April 2020
Archive 22 – 11 April 2020 - 27 January 2021
Archive 23 – 27 January 2021 - 1 November 2021
Archive 24 – 10 November 2021 - 19 September 2022
Archive 25 – 21 September 2022 - 19 September 2023
Archive 26 – 21 September 2023 - 10 September 2024

I use different email addresses for different purposes, so please read User:Thryduulf/Contact before sending me an email to ensure your message gets to the right place

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Find your source on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Australian Survivor on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty old man on Wiktionary

Hi, the definition on the page Dirty old man on Wiktionary is inaccurate. It is "an old or older adult male who acts in a lewd and lecherous manner", not a generic "adult male". Would you kindly fix it, please? 151.46.79.89 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should post this on the relevant talk page on Wiktionary (or just change it yourself), I'm not going to have time to look for at least a couple of days I expect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But no one answers me there and the page is protected until 2029, and you are a Wiktionary administrator, right? 151.46.78.204 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody is answering on the talk page try wikt:Wiktionary:Tea room. I am no longer an admin on Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you still an autocofirmed user? Couldn't you fix it anyway? 151.38.59.219 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the protection level, but you should be asking in one of the venues I previously mentioned rather than badgering a random person on a different project. I won't be responding further to you about this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's "fictional language"

Hi Thryduulf - I understand your point on the PlayStation Dos RFD and I agree with it in general regarding your reply - but there's additional context that the poster of that comment is from Brazil and is making a self depreciating joke about it (see their userpage - they've got a section about it). I don't want to make mountains out of molehills but it's relevant context in case the discussion goes further BugGhost 🦗👻 00:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, @Bugghost, that context is helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,First of all, I wish you good luck and success and stay healthy. Request to add sections

Hello, I am Abduvaitov Sherzod. I am a contributor to Uzbek, Russian and English Wikipedia. Can I add sections from other Wikis to the Karaginsky Island article? Please give permission or guidance! Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 0988 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abduvaitov Sherzod 0988: I am sorry but I don't have time now to help you in detail, but in general be bold and edit the article, nobody needs to give you permission. If you want advice or help then the best place to ask is Wikipedia:Tea house or, for technical queries, Wikipedia:Help desk. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice and thanks, I will edit this article. Thank you. Happy editing! Abduvaitov Sherzod 0988 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kiss (band) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small action leads to much appreciation

Hello @Thryduulf,

I noticed you asked the same question of all the candidates over at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase, namely “Why did you choose to seek adminship via election rather than via a standard RFA?”, which, while I’m sure it took but a second of your time to pose to everyone, was an important question to ask. The few candidates that have responded so far have provided very enlightening answers in response. Again, thanks! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 01:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 11 minutes to do the asking plus a couple more to figure out the best phrasing, but you're welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here to give thanks for mass posting this question. I think the answers to this question will reveal important information for the debrief after the election. In other words, it's basically asking the candidates what they feel are the pros of the administrator election format compared to RFA, which is useful info. So anyway, thank you :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image syntax

Hello, I see you are testing some image syntax in your sandbox. Are your testing in regards to invalid image option syntax errors, or would it be ok if the four tracked errors were addressed? Numbers 10 and 16 are claiming to have multiple captions due to the | after the intended caption, and 11 and 17 have the same sort of issue, just presenting differently with the empty parameter | | appearing before the intended caption. (the other cases of | | aren't an issue since no other caption appears in those cases)

Just asking since Invalid image options is one of the error types I've helped eliminate on Wikipedia, and I try to keep these from repopulating, with exception to intentional test cases. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context for the testing is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Warn on inline image usage where your input would be extremely valuable. I'd rather you didn't adjust the syntax in my sandbox until that discussion concludes though as that might complicate things. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that's why I asked, since (with the edit summary included) it looked more intentional and the table syntax was far better written than the usual popup cases from the random new users I see. I'll leave it be. Thanks for the info! Zinnober9 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mothballed admins

My words were inexact, but we have a number of admins who retired fully trusted by the community. Many of those might pickup the mop after demonstrating their competency (method to be discussed, for example a "re-election" much like the current admin election model). In addition we have many former admins who still edit regularly. I wish we had a system of "rehabilitating" former admins, who were trusted but had some issues. Former admins face an extra-ordinarily high bar for return, IMHO. I would like to see a path for re-briefing, re-entrusting, re-connecting with former trusted servants. No plan, just a desire to broaden our bench with people we already know. We let indef-blocked and banned editors rejoin the community but desysopped or retired admins rarely try to regain the mop. BusterD (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing preventing anyone who has been desysopped for activity from standing again at RFA (or elections if they continue), whether they are beyond the period of automatic reinstatement or not. If they demonstrated that they were familiar with current policies and cultural norms (and hadn't done anything since desysopping that would prevent someone gaining adminship for the first time) then they would easily pass. The reality is that most people who get desysopped for inactivity don't become active editors again, we can't know why in the majority of cases but assuming it is like other internet communities it will be a case of interests shifting over time and real life changes meaning they don't have the time they once did. Wikipedia hasn't been around long enough for those who were active as students who left because jobs and families took their time to return as retirees/empty nesters.

Of those that do return after extended absences, not all of them have an interest in becoming administrators again. Fixing RFA is probably the single thing we can do to bring back those who do return and still (or again) want to be admins, but even if we do that will have far greater impact on those who have never been admins. Energy spent in this regard is almost certainly going to be better focused at stopping admins becoming inactive in the first place, although nothing we can do (other than fixing the society of whichever real-world country they live in) will prevent the issues of time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well-considered answer. You caught me acting uncharacteristically emotional the other day, and just staring at your datestamp caused me to straighten up a bit. I don't like looking immature in front of people I generally respect. But worse, if I act badly, I want people I can count on to hold me to account. Thanks. I see we're getting eleven new admins with the election and not looking like losing either of the petitioned two (we might lose mostly inactive TonyUSMC for cause, which is a terrible look for us). So gather ye rosebuds... BusterD (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Funicular railways in Slovenia

A tag has been placed on Category:Funicular railways in Slovenia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

In case you didn't know, your Sandobox is listed at Lint Errors: Bogus file options. When you are done with this experiment, it would be great if you would blank the page or otherwise remove the four lint errors. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See #Image syntax above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On self votes

Hi Thryduulf -- I note you hatted my draft question on this topic in my absence. Obviously in the current election a single vote either way would not make a blind bit of difference. But... imagine in future this process has been running for a while, and interest in it has substantially cooled. Say not particularly well-known admin EA has been recalled. If she chooses to endure a reconfirmation RfA she may not support herself; if she chooses to run at an administrator election, she may support herself. If the number of votes cast is low, then that single self vote can determine the outcome. Not particularly suggesting reopening but these things need to be considered carefully somewhere. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion it's clear that it is completely unenforceable and there is consensus against asking a question about it in the RFC. Indeed, you seem to be the only person to consider self-voting an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet admits to being a sockpuppet

User:MSSPN2008. Check out their userpage. Twinkle won't let me report to SPI without knowing who the sockpuppeteer is. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBW appears to have already blocked them for inappropriate use of multiple accounts. As I'm not a checkuser, I don't think there is anything more for me to do here? Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, Thryduulf, I chose you as an admin since:

It didn't appear to be a big enough deal of a case to absolutely require SPI.
You happened to be on top of the recently active admins list in that moment of time.

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: If it's of any interest to you, the other account is Masierra2008. JBW (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@BGerdemann (WMF) is that the right link? It tells me I have already participated. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Timothy West

On 13 November 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Timothy West, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 22:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

..for your comment on WP:ARC, you are probably right, though it is no fun being accused, but nor knowing what for. I am not too worried, though: I haven't broken any wiki rules, AFAIK. Actually, the first thing I thought of when I heard of the Discord -channel was: how silly...pro-Israelis were 100% sure to join and "leak" anything discussed: I recall from the CAMERA-case: the first thing some of those recruited there did, was to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine. Typically too: I am not familiar with any of the other "accused"; they seem to be mostly "rookies" -relatively speaking. Anyway, thank you for your comment, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southcote Junction

I wondered if you had anything to contribute to the current discussion on Southcote Junction, which might have wider implications for other railway related articles. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop

Thryduulf, I am extremely concerned that the RfC that comes from this reworkshop, as it currently stands, is going to trainwreck. We have something like 15–17 questions being proposed for a project-wide RfC, some which are frankly not pressing issues. Many of these questions, if left unasked, will answer themselves when they need to. But if we ask all of these questions right now, there won't be any positive changes, the RfC will careen sideways, and that's that. To make this RfC viable and digestible for the community, it needs to be ten questions, max. Can I count on you to cooperate with me towards that goal? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we need a focused RFC with carefully thought out and presented options. I disagree that one or two people unilaterally deciding which questions are important is the correct way to do that, and I disagree that this means an arbitrary maximum number of questions. There needs to be broad agreement about which questions are asked in an RFC, which questions needs answers but don't need an RFC, and which don't need answers (or have already been answered). Once there is agreement on which questions need to go to the RFC, we should then work out the best way to ask each question and the best order to ask them in. All this needs discussion not boldness bordering on recklessness. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's way easier to propose a question than to get broad agreement to shelve it. That means that the net effect is that the number of questions balloons, which is exactly what's happening now. So, yes, there needs to be a way to keep this RfC from derailing, and that means shelving things that do not need to be answered in the next month, because there are a lot of things that do need to be fixed ASAP. Do you have any thoughts on which questions that might be? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I don't know which is the most important set of questions but I'll spend a few minutes and put some thoughts on the page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]