Jump to content

User talk:Thryduulf/archive26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move discussion

[edit]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly suggestion

[edit]

Hi Thryduulf. I'm following this thread on my watchlist, and I've noticed something that I feel I should mention. In just the past few days, you've contributed over 22,000 bytes of text on the RFC over more than a dozen comments - which doesn't include your comments about the topic elsewhere, in the days leading up to the RFC's creation.

I understand that you feel passionately that admins should not have to disclose who is paying them for "Wikipedia advising", or how much they're getting paid. You've made your point strongly and at length. You've made points about privacy that were nuanced: points that many other users found compelling. I disagree, but I do not question that you've reached your conclusions in good faith.

All I would say is that, as an administrator yourself, and therefore someone who might be personally invested in the outcome of the RFC, I find the frequency and length of your feedback a little bit troubling. I'm not suggesting that you have anything to "hide" here, because you've been quite transparent about the ways you've been compensated for Wiki-related activities in the past. What I am humbly suggesting is that you take a step or three back from the RFC and let it play out. Since the discussion is specifically about admin disclosure, having an admin oppose the RFC so vehemently, with tens of thousands of bytes, just doesn't sit quite right with me, and I imagine that other editors would agree if asked.

Again, this is just something I noticed while watching the thread. You are a respected admin, for good reason, and I don't wish for this comment to be interpreted as any suggestion to the contrary. I hope you will take my suggestion in good faith, as again, there is no evidence that you have a COI here, other than simply being an admin. Thanks for reading. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please heed this suggestion. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar!

[edit]
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]

Thank you! It's always nice when your work is appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make peace?

[edit]
    I extend the olive branch.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that my criticisms/concerns have come across as "accusing you of terrible things". I don't actually have a dim view of you at all; you're one of my favorite admins and I respect the general editorial work you do as well. Me having gotten a perception of over-involvement in capitalization-related matters doesn't equate to some kind of finding of fact about your intentions. I know the difference between an implication and an inference, a cause and a correlation, an event and a one-sided perception of what seemed to happen. I've thought about all you said, and come to a conclusion to just take it all at face value. Both your statements about your stance, and your indications that I've hurt your feelings with the arguments I've made.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is a nice message to wake up to. I should also apologise for the "accusing [me] of terrible things" phrasing, which could have been much better. It was a first attempt at giving a brief summary of why I might not be regarded as neutral regarding you that I intended to refine but never did (brevity being far from my strongest suit). Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understood the point of it, and appreciated the candor. But I'd already been thinking of posting something like the above to your page, and the fact that you clearly still felt slighted made up my mind. :-) I can be a forceful arguer at times, but I don't like to create lasting bad feelings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted PRODs

[edit]

None of the content in the majority of those pages is sourced nor is it notable enough to be merged. The pages should simply be deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not presently sourced is not relevant and I disagree on notability. If you think differently then nominate the pages at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gully Reserve

[edit]

What I want and what will happen are two different things, I am skipping a move a head because of what happened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 27 for George Andrews Reserve. I am looking for the correct redirect, so why won't you allow that?????????? I feel that was an unfair early close that didn't let other people to take part. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy I don't understand what you are saying here. I closed the RfD discussion because your statements there read to me like you were challenging the closure of the AfD, which is a DRV matter. Go to RfD only if you don't want to overturn the AfD but acknowledge that the title is a redirect but think a different target could be better. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 19. —Cryptic 15:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

[edit]
    I extend the olive branch.
    (in regards to disputes at RfD and elsewhere). Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD comment

[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf,

I have a request. At some AFDs, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 Invicta Dynamos season, you propose a Merge to "a higher level article". If you could be more specific and name the target article you are proposing, I think some of these AFDs would be closed and not relisted. But the fact that you're unsure what the Merge target should be results in a relisting until another editor comes along with a specific article that they might suggest the article under discussion be Merged or Redirected to. This is especially important if the nominator gives no such Merge or Redirect suggestion.

As I understand the process, while they should use "common sense", closers aren't supposed to come up with their own original solutions to resolve deletion discussions so if you could be more specific with any Merge or Redirect opinions, that would be very helpful. Thank you for your continued participation in deletion discussions. Except for hot topics, there has been a decline in the number of editors participating at AFD and your involvement is appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Adobe Express" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Adobe Express has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21 § Adobe Express until a consensus is reached. Ennex2 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with numbers

[edit]

You might be interested in what I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Village pump#Who posts at the Village pumps? It puts some numbers around that nagging sense I've had that the village pumps might be the best place to reach The Community™, but they're still not very good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OI

[edit]

if I can ask, what is it you were gonna talk to me about? I got the alert that you put up something on my talk page, but it was suppressed. if you can re-word it, i'd love to know what you want to talk to me about Babysharkboss2 was here!! 12:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Babysharkboss2 sorry for the confusion, I didn't add anything to your talk page just removed (and suppressed) something posted by @DON'T CRY BY GUN'S N ROSES. You've done nothing wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, ok, good. Thanks, have a nice day!! Babysharkboss2 was here!! 13:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.

Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.

Thank you.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding

[edit]

Please read WP:NTRAINSTATION. This shows that train stations are not inherently notable and must meet GNG or a subject specific guideline. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with that guideline. I am also very familiar with the outcome of AfDs of train stations - where the station is verifiable (and verifiably is or was a train station) every single one has been kept, merged or redirected to an article about the system, line or locality where such exists. Prodding such articles is a waste of time because those that are not individually notable should be merged or redirected not deleted (and a not insignificant proportion turn out to actually be notable). Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santadas Kathiababa develop articles

[edit]

Why doesn't the Wikipedia article come up when you search Santadas Kathiababa article on Google? Improve this article. 202.181.19.254 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it doesn't appear on Google. As far as I can tell it has not been set to be no-indexed so you'll have to ask Google that question. As far as I remember I have had no input regarding this article and know nothing about the subject so I am puzzled why you have left me this message and I'm unable to improve it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has existed for less than two weeks. Google won't pick it up for some time yet, probably the end of January; see WP:NOINDEX. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hallowe'en Party 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 06:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 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 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter 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 18:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tuple 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 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

[edit]

Hi Thryduulf :) I'm looking to interview people here, feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of best-selling game consoles 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 02:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rush (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 15:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Could you please solve the links to disambiguation pages that you created? Template:Unicode chart single emojis and Template:Unicode chart Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs need fixing after your (undiscussed) change of the redirect. Thanks for your effort. The Banner talk 09:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner it you think the retargetting is incorrect, then feel free to discuss it civilly with reasons rather than snide comments. Links to disambiguation pages are the best thing for readers when they search term is ambiguous though. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 12:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a request to solve an issue you created as "snide comments", than something is wrong at your side. The Banner talk 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 appeal

[edit]

In terms of my drafted appeal at User:Crouch, Swale/Appeal are you happy with it or are there any changes that you would like to see, I'm just wondering since you participated in a number of previous appeals. In summary the request as instructed is to formerly remove all restrictions but I will voluntarily follow some for a few months, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had a chance to skim-read it at this point, but my first impression is that the tone comes across as whiny. This is not going to put people in mind to accept the appeal. In previous appeals I recall that you were told to get consensus that articles about the parishes you want to write were desired by the community before appealing - have you done this?
In the last line of the first paragraph you write As previously noted I not have the ability I presume this is a typo and you mean "now? rather than "not"?
If I get chance to read it in detail, I may have more detailed feedback for you, but my takeaway from this read is that it doesn't demonstrate you have understood why the restrictions were put in place, nor why your last few appeals haven't been successful. If you submit this as is, I would be surprised if the appeal was granted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Thryduulf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_20#Shaik.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Thryduulf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_20#Shaik.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Thryduulf,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[D|d]raft stuff

[edit]

Regarding this: There was no accusation of bad faith, just observation of poor judgment. GoodDay came to my talk page to convince me to try to get someone else to not move pages subject to that RfC while still ongoing, with a suggestion of ANI action, and then does that? It's very pointy, and has no basis left but personal preference, being defensible neither by our internal ruleset (which starts with reliable sourcing, and works down from there into multiple guidelines on this kind of matter, also grounded in sourcing policy), nor the sources themselves. I'm not sure why you feel the need to leap to the defense of everyone who wants to ignore both in favor of over-capitalizing things that pertain to their favorite topics, and [you, not them] cast aspersions (e.g. of bad-faith assumption) in the name of opposing supposed aspersion-casting, of all things.

The frequency with which you accuse me of such things is getting annoying, even troubling. A while back I wasn't so cordial with you on similar topics, and ended up retracting it, with a declaration of taking you at face value on what you say your concerns are and what is motivating them, despite what seemed to me a pattern of aggression towards particular editors simply for applying our P&G instead of ignoring them to suit topic-specific subjective preferences. My ability to keep doing that has been shaken repeatedly since then, and you've certainly extended nothing like that courtesy in my direction, but turned more aggressive.

FWIW, I revised my post at the RM, for the sake of peace (and removed your objection along with the revision, since what you said no longer had a referent; if you'd prefer, I guess you could revert that and I can do a strike edit instead, but I don't see the point, since the wording you don't like would still be present. PS: It's also disingenuous to suggest that no one but me sees any battlegrounding here when the RfC and what led up to it has been called battlegrounding (and various less even-handed terms that resolve to the same notion) by many, including you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be accused of casting aspersions then the simple thing to do is to stop casting aspersions. I don't have time to respond in detail, but I stand by the comments I left in the AfL draft move discussion. If you have a problem then consider taking it to dispute resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it? Just doubling down with no rationale? In what way is criticizing observable editorial behavior and rationales (and lack of bases for them) aspersion-casting? In what way is you accusing me of bad-faith assumption without any evidence not actual aspersion-casting?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained in detail multiple times what aspersions you are casting and why they are aspersions. I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that doing the same thing again would mean you get called out for doing the same thing again without the need for a detailed explanation. Specifically, allegations of canvassing and bad faith on the part of a WikiProject or similar group of editors without evidence, accusations of ILIKEIT (when nobody has cast any !votes remotely like it, at least at the time you made your comment I haven't had chance to look at the discussion since my last edit to this talk page), and attempts to undermine or similar (I forget the exact words you used) the guideline when in the specific and recent discussions it has been explicitly explained to you multiple times that simply disagreeing with whether something is a proper noun is not the same as objecting to guidelines about to treat things that are proper nouns. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about your unsupported claims here of me engaging in aspersion-casting and bad-faith-assumption. You're mixing-and-matching different discusions. There is no mention of canvassing of any kind in that thread, nor mention of the word "WikiProject", nor any claim of bad faith on the part of anyone, in any version of what I posted there.

In a completely different thread, you asked for evidence of canvassing and I provided it. So, you just seem not to be following up on what you ask for, and assuming that what you asked for would not be provided or did not exist, that I had made false accusations. I.e., you seem to have made up your mind prejudicially of wrongdoing on my part and have since been proceeding in a grudge-bearing manner on that basis, when I did not in fact do what you think I did. Moving on, I made no allegations of bad faith in any related discussion; only you are doing that, frankly. Observing that certain parties are acting contrary to various guidelines and various actual policies is not an accusation of bad faith, it's an observation of questionable decisions with disruptive results. I'm sure their motivations are actually good-faith ones; they almost always are in such disputes (unless someone with a CoI is involved as sometimes happens in commercial trademark cases). Having good-faith intentions does not means something cannot be disruptive or contrary to policy. Next, when there is no sourcing or P&G basis for something, just a personal preference, that is by definition an ILIKEIT matter, it's what that means; that is an observation, not an "accusation". Your misuse of the words "accused" and "accusation" over and over and over again in my direction is battlegroundy and itself a form of aspersion-casting since you can prove no such things on my part. Finally, you're just confusing unrelated arguments with each other. I never used any phrasing like "undermine the guideline"; I observed and diffed canvassing to undermine VPPOL and RfC processes as valid community examination of the question (and historical canvassing to vote-stack against an RM going for lowercase). That ultimately has nothing to do with "simply disagreeing with whether something is a proper noun" (other than inasmuch as certain parties who keep asserting something is one despite all evidence to the contrary strongly overlap with those trying to invalidate or do an end-run around RfC process).

You mentioned DR above, and I'd be happy to engage in that with you to move beyond this flare-up of eroded trust and goodwill between us.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I misremembered which particular set of aspersions you were casting in this particular instance. However I did explicitly state in my reply I can see no evidence that the nominator here is unaware of policy, that anybody (including the nominator) has argued on the basis of ILIKEIT, or that anybody other than you views this as a battleground. which directly addressed what you wrote. If that, combined with the previous detailed explanations of what aspersions you regularly cast is not sufficient for you to understand what aspersions are and how to stop casting them, then I see no alternative to dispute resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence that the nominator is unaware of the policies (or, more to the point, their actual meaning and applicability – knowing that a shortcut exists doesn't indicate understanding of the material it points to) is of course that the nomination is contrary to them; observing this is not an aspersion. I'm not the only one to say so, and further P&G have been cited since by others to speedily close the RM as disruptive and/or a time waste, including WP:BOLD, WP:BOLDMOVE, WP:WHENCLOSE, and WP:SKCRIT. Claiming that the nom intends to evade the P&G on purpose might be an aspersion, but I did not do that. Already been over ILIKEIT: the definition of this is making an argument based on preferences instead of P&G and sourcing. Not an aspersion, an observation of what is left when the nomination and arguments in favor of it are contrary to both. (Technically, WP:AADP#Personal taste and WP:JUST are actually more pertinent, since WP:ILIKEIT is the deletion-specific version.) Pointing any of these things out is not battlegrouding, nor is consistently opposing attempts to do things that are against both the P&G and the sourcing; it's just protecting the project from PoV and OR problems.

Let's actually go over WP:Casting aspersions: accused of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations are collectively considered a personal attack. ... It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. ... to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause ... and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor [lots of repetition elided]. That's what you're doing to me, really stubbornly (my skin's thick, and I'm not that butt-hurt about it, but would like to get past this because it's unconstructive). It's not anything I've done to GoodDay (the RM nominator), nor to anyone at the RfC. The only actual accusation I made (i.e. of something definitely "wrongdoing" and actionable with sanctions) was of canvassing, which I proved with diffs (and took no other action about, because I'm alergic to the dramaboards). The other more general complaints/criticisms I made are well-evidenced, with "reasonable cause": 1) of trying to shut down an RfC inappropriately, which is self-evident and clearly diffable in the same discussion in which that activity appears, plus most of the canvassing diffs; and 2) of ignoring the P&G and sourcing to get unjustifiable capitalization (itself a PoV and OR policy problem), which is adequately demonstrated by the P&G material and source evidence provided already by me and others within the same discussion. Not aspersion-casting.

So, is there something else relevant that I've said that you want to characterize as an "accusation" of "misbehavior" and "without evidence" or "reasonable cause"? Maybe I did and I should retract it. Maybe I said something actually justified and you did not see the evidence you think is lacking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🏴󠁩󠁱󠁫󠁲󠁿 versus 🏴󠁩󠁲󠀱󠀶󠁿

[edit]

Hey mate, I was wondering if you can explain the difference between these two flags? Does the former have an official name, so that the R from emoji template can be filled in? Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first has the code IQKR which is for Kurdistan Region, Iraq and our article does (at least) strongly imply that the region uses the flag of Kurdistan. The second has the code IR16, which [1] states refers to Ilam province. Our article on the province does indicate it has a large Kurdish population and is considered (by (some?) Kurds) to be part of Iranian Kurdistan (which appears to have no official status), however they don't mention flags. List of Iranian flags doesn't mention provinces, and I can't immediately find any reliable source stating that Iranian provinces do have flags. So I am not sure how correct or appropriate this redirect is - it could be completely uncontroversial, it could be expressing a political opinion, it could be simply incorrect - it needs input with someone actually familiar with the topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They both look like plain black flags for me. In UTF-8 encoding (as used by the MediaWiki software), each flag takes 24 bytes to encode. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They look like plain black flags because your OS/browser (I can't remember which it is) doesn't (yet) support subnational flag emoji. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25#🏴󠁩󠁱󠁫󠁲󠁿 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#🏴󠁭󠁭󠀱󠀶󠁿 for more explanation/discussion. I too just see the unknown flag icon (in my case a light blue question mark on a white flag), but I have a useful addon for Firefox called Character Identifier (it does exactly what it says on the tin) that is useful in situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the topic area, and I'm not sure which Wikipedians might be, so I've emailed Emojipedia regarding the Kurdistan flags and a few errors I found on their site. I'm not sure how quick they are to respond, but now that the official names in the R from emoji templates are filled in for all of the other emoji redirects, I might move on to the flags. Enix150 (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Feedback request service is down

[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

[edit]

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

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RDAB

[edit]

Hi. In recent days, WP:RFD has once again been flooded by dozens, if not hundreds of nominated redirects with a missing space before parentheses, all with the same deletion rationale — "delete per RDAB". See today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, Monday... You said the other day that a speedy deletion criterion for RDAB has been proposed before and failed because "it's not common enough" (I would disagree, but whatever). But clearly, something has to be done about this — all of these nominations have resulted in deletion, and the consensus is stronger than ever. What about expanding the scope of WP:G14, which already includes redirects that end with "(disambiguation)" but do not redirect to DAB pages? Has that been considered? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something needs to be done. The "not common enough" was just my recollection of why the previous attempt failed, not a comment on the present situation. I don't think expanding G14 is a good idea, but an R5 would be good, but restricted to only RDAB errors that are uncontroversial. A lack of space between the term and the disambiguator is uncontroversial, capitalisation differences are not. There is a potential for overlap between R3 (recently created implausible redirects, we can agree lack of a space is implausible) and G6 (created in error, which includes redirects created when fixing an error made when moving a page). The place to discuss all this though is WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization is controversial? I can see Foo (Bar) being controversial, but I've yet to see a Foo (Disambiguation) redirect being kept. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Foo (Disambiguation)" is just as logical as "Foo (disambiguation)" is just as logical as "Foo (Bar)" is just as logical as "Foo (bar)". There is no benefit to deletion just for capitalisation reasons, and no logical reason to treat any of them differently. It's been a while since I've seen a "(Disambiguation)" nominated but from memory I wasn't the only one who objected to deletion last time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus I've now made a proposal at WT:CSD#Improper disambiguation redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect Barnstar for you!

[edit]
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]
Thank you. RfD is not something I expected to find my niche in, but I just keep coming back! Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#WP:ECR as a side step to WP:CSD

[edit]

In your edit Special:Diff/1206202464, quote: If the request is to fix a typo, you can't just post on the talk page straight away. In more complicated cases you may need to spend a few edits getting the markup correct [...] – I think you meant "to fix a typo, you can just post". —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T:WPBIO

[edit]

Hello; I've been following this particular case for a while, but haven't had the chance to follow up with this. I really don't think that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 26#T:WPBIO should have been closed the way that it was. At the very least, I really expected a relist, given the circumstances and amount of unaddressed components and unclosed threads. Especially when there were 2 !votes to keep and 2 !votes to delete, there was still more discussion to be had from my point of view. A major example was the discrepancy between T:WPBIO and Template:WPBIO targeting different sections on the same page, for no rhyme or reason that could be figured out by looking at the two.

At the end of the day, I do believe there are valid reasons for me bringing the XNR to RfD, especially given the background that there was consensus to delete other t:cases. So to boil the entire nomination into a "personal" deal in the closing statement, I feel like this was a definite undersell of the stance, as you made it seem the entire thing was me saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. T:space redirects are fundamentally confusing and consensus overwhelmingly discourages them. Per Wikipedia:Shortcut#Pseudo-namespaces, T:space redirects only are accepted in a limited number of specific uses, not because one user created one over a decade ago to a template that is not frequently accessed in the same way in 2024. OlEnglish's creation was in good faith, but because it has the prefix of T:, it will naturally get in the way and show up in searches when looking for other valid mainspace articles, so the amount of these needs to be minimized. Back on topic though, OlEnglish was primarily looking for a shortcut to use, not necessarily a T:space shortcut. Their initial !vote for keep was due to them being the creator and sole user, which Tavix reflected. But in their next comment, they admitted that they were not actually tied to a T: pseudo-space shortcut, and that a WP:space shortcut also works for them. And honestly, that's great! The WP project-space shortcut can be created and used, T:space shortcuts become refined to only the most prevalent template needs, and everyone wins. I'm just surprised that this was closed as keep, when Tavix hadn't yet responded to OlEnglish's compromise, a compromise coming from the only person that seemingly ever used this shortcut. I would not call that proven utility of a T:space shortcut, that's just... using a shortcut, which has not yet been proven to need to be in T: space.

If possible, I really think this should at least be relisted, or reconsidered, because there was still far more loose ends then what I thought there'd be at close. Thank you for understanding. Best, Utopes (talk / cont) 05:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I've seen this and I'm considering it, but I'm not ready to make a decision just yet. Thryduulf (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading that discussion and your comments above, it's clear that you have misinterpreted T: redirects. They have consensus for a limited number of specific uses, and which those uses are can obviously only be determined in discussions such as RfD and there is (and has have been) a requirement for shortcuts to templates (in whatever namespace) to lead to the same place as the template itself) nor for anybody to prove a need for a redirect to be in T: space (either there is a consensus that the redirect is more useful than harmful or there isn't), which invalidates much (but not all) of your nomination and subsequent comment. The comments by OE and Tavix fully refute Kj cheetham's not seeing the benefit (one person not understanding how a redirect is useful is one of the weakest possible arguments at RfD) and OE explaining how it is used negates the latter part of your nomination statement.
The three previous discussions (two keep, and one no consensus where (paraphrased) "no compelling arguments for deletion were presented") mean that in order for there to be an outcome of delete there needs to be a very clear consensus to overturn the prior consensuses. Here we had a nomination that was largely mistaken and partly invalidated, two keep votes with a solid grounding based on WP:R#KEEP, and one delete that was extremely weak. There we no suggestions for anything else (e.g. retargetting) so the only options available to me were keep, no consensus or relist. There had been no comments for a week before I closed, so there was plenty of opportunity for anyone to respond further if they wished to do so, and/or for anyone to ping Tavix if they were specifically waiting for their input, and it is not uncommon for relisted RfD nominations to attract no further input. Taking all this into account, it was my assessment that relisting would not be particularly beneficial and thus this T: redirect is one of the limited and specific uses there is consensus for.
My options now are to stand by my closure, reclose as no consensus or relist. No consensus would require the strength of the arguments to be roughly equal, and for the reasons noted above I remain unconvinced that they are, so I am definitely not going to pursue that path. I'm also not convinced there were any flaws in the discussion, so the only reason to relist would be if it is reasonably likely that doing so would result in more input from other editors (input from you is almost guaranteed) and plausible that such input would lead to a different outcome. Ultimately I'm not certain enough that both of those will be true, so I'm going to decline to reopen the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Help Project on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 07:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

[edit]

Thryduulf, I don't have an informed opinion on whether or not you've been bludgeoning the discussion/RfC, but I would recommend that you respond less frequently to positions you disagree with. Maybe you could let a few days of comments stack up and then tackle the lot of arguments with a single comment?

I hope you won't mind my hijacking your page a bit, but I'd also like to recommend to ValarianB and AndyTheGrump that posting T's comment count repeatedly is very unlikely to be helpful. Misconduct accusations placed in the midst of content discussions just lead to misconduct defenses and further accusations and defenses and so on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff

[edit]

I feel Uptown Scottsbluff was improperly deleted, as the rationale of WP:ROUTINE does not apply to shopping malls and no attempt seems to have been made to do a WP:BEFORE on the mall's previous name of Monument Mall. As my topic ban precludes me taking this to DRV, what do you think should be done to contest this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without providing sources that are clearly significant and clearly secondary I don't think you'd get very far at DRV even if you were allowed to take it there. If you have those sources, then my suggestion is to ask Star Mississippi (as the closing admin) to put a copy in your preference of user or draftspace so you can work on improving the article - discussion with the closing admin is recommended before DRV anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Thryduulf. I have restored this for @TenPoundHammer and wow if that isn't a blast from Wiki past.
To be honest, I don't think a DRV would have closed the way you wanted it. There weren't sufficient CORP compliant sources either and the consensus to delete is fairly strong as far as recent levels of participation for non controversial topics. Star Mississippi 16:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several other mall articles have closed as "keep" for similar levels of coverage, and WP:ROUTINE has historically been deemed inapplicable to shopping malls. I still think nobody did a WP:BEFORE on the mall's prior name, as there was no evidence of anyone doing so and I found sources under the former name with ease. I'll work on it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

[edit]

Hello Thryduulf,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
story · music · places

... for a constructive comment about how beneficial access to a list of compositions is! - On C.P.E.'s birthday -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

[edit]

they're just going to let the SMcCandlish thread age off the board? At ANI this week they have chased off one editor for typos and are about to indef another for constructive gnoming that violated broadly construed.

I try to believe in Wikipedia, I really do, but sometimes fairies would be easier. Elinruby (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that doesn't happen and I'm strugging to think of a justification for it, but if it does there will be a next time. Unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"cannot"

[edit]

With respect to the first principle you proposed: I think in many cases COI editing is not distinguished by the inability of the editor to determine neutrality, but rather by the indifference (or in some cases active opposition) of the editor towards neutrality. I'm sure many paid editors understand that they are being paid to write non-neutrally. --JBL (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are cases where paid editors are being paid to write non-neutrally, but that doesn't alter the fact that they cannot (reliably) judge what neutral is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble parsing your response, which probably means I wasn't clear in my initial message. Let me try to restate it; if I'm mistaken in my interpretation, you have my apologies (but maybe in that case you could clarify your response).
Your assertion that "[editors with a COI] cannot reliably judge" what neutral writing is seems both mistaken and off-point to me. Personally I am quite capable of judging what NPOV means with respect to the article on my employer. The (potential) problem with COI editing is not about the ability of COI editors to identify neutral editing, it's that they may not edit neutrally for any of multiple reasons, possibly including but not limited to an inability to judge what neutral editing would mean. My suggestion is to broaden the wording slightly to not rely on capability as the relevant issue. (Out of an abundance of caution, I will note that although I am capable of judging neutrality with respect to my employer, I don't edit the Wikipedia article about it.) --JBL (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue you're having is possibly my use of the word "reliably". Everybody (competent) can tell when an article is extremely biased (not everybody cares, but that's a different matter). The issue is that if you have a COI (or, it's worth point out, other form of strong bias) most people cannot reliably (i.e. in all cases) tell slightly positive or slightly negative from truly neutral.
Also, simply being an employee of a company doesn't necessarily introduce a strong bias with regards to that company. For example if you are a low-level employee in an organisation about which you have no particularly strong attachment to, your salary isn't tied to its performance, is generally not controversial, is in a sector about which you have no strong feelings regarding, and you could get a job with a different organisation relatively easily then your COI is extremely weak and you are (generally) going to be a pretty fair judge of what is and isn't neutral in an article about them. The fewer of those things that are true though, the stronger your COI is going to be and the less reliable a judge you will be. As you can see though there are many variables and at least most of them exist on a gradient rather than being black and white and several are subjective, so the whole thing is massive shades of grey.
Our policies though have to have at least some degree of objectivity, and taken as a class COI editors as a whole are not able to reliably judge what is and isn't neutral, especially as the policies do not (maybe cannot) distinguish those editors whose goal is a neutral article and those editors whose goal is a biased article (which is an issue I have with the absolute demonisation of paid editors - not all are contributing with the goal of harming Wikipedia. Some are, but the existence of Wikimedians in residence proves that some != all). Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sure that what gets me about it is the definitiveness/inflexibility of the "cannot" phrasing -- which is in contrast to the rather more nuanced view in your second paragraph here. I guess your goal is that "reliably" captures that nuance/flexibility; and my comment is that I don't think it does (or maybe I'm not convinced it reliably does? :) ); and please feel free to make use of or ignore this feedback, as you deem fit. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two hours and 22 minutes is the time that it took

[edit]

I realize we are all busy and much drama is afoot but the following is really not ok and there is no doubt in my mind that it will continue, just elsewhere possibly. Which still doesn't make it ok. You said you would have wanted to be notified. Are you still the person to notify? Or is it ScottishFinnishRadish now gas the last person to touch this? Pinging Star Mississippi also as closer of the ANI thread he keeps scolding me for, who may wish to comment.

SMcCandlish AE said: McCandlish is reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that they remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And on and on and on said: Don't ping people to discussions if you're unwilling to listen to anything they say...you made blatantly false accusations at AE like "SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page." I have done absolutely nothing of the source, and you should strike that nonsense— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

ping here, quoted context below. I got dragged to ANI proceedings, retracted in their entirety, for giving a newbie a contentious topic alert and providing a courtesy link to a new and relevant Arbcom motion, so no actually, I dont think that his unsolicited lecture on civility is probably the same that anyone would give. For sure nobody else has felt a need to do such a thing, and I thought the following was a rather polite summing up, considering. (Certainly I was trying to be polite. I am willing to accept feedback on the subject): BTW, I will look at your suggested reading. I am not saying it never has applied. But not this time and not in the way you assumed it did. (Why is this on my talk page??) I realize that it was well-intentioned advice based on what you thought happened because of your preconceptions, which I think you should examine. But no doubt there is something I can learn from it; I will give that some thought and a careful read. These situations arise quite frequently in reference verification. Elinruby (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

quoted context for ping; TL;DR it was a request he verify his own actions, not for his opinion of mine

The Arbcom decision is about pages about Poland... which Double Genocide Theory mentions once. The page is about holocaust historiography in general and lithuania in particular. You are really stretching that ArbCom decision. Still disruptive behavior. Carlp941 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC) --snip-- The link he is talking about on Buidhe's page is a link to the December Arbcom motion that applied the special sourcing requirements from the Antisemitism in Poland case to the topic area of Lithuania. I know it's confusing but that's the way they did it. SMcCandlish initiated the motion and I was one of several people who supported it. Perhaps he will be good enough to confirm the context. The article we're talking about is of course older than that so the link was intended as context for Buidhe as to why I would say, for example, that Slate is not an academic source...The edit warring complaint lists diffs at the article and talk page in chronological order, if that helps anyone. Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If needed, convenience links to proceedings mentioned

I probably missed some; please ping with any questions

Marcelus 1RR appeal

Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS it goes on from there. Mangled the Star Mississippi mention, putting the space in this time Elinruby (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding what the complaint is here to be honest. I'll read everything again in a bit, but at the moment I'm just confused. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just now saw this. I am pretty tired so I am not going to attempt to explain how it came to be that he filed an Arbcom request that resulted in WW2 Lithuanian now being a CT under the Antisemitism in Poland decision. There's all kinds of wrong with that but... I'll explain this tomorrow if it really matters; it's a lot to take in in one gulp and no wonder you find it hard to follow. But there is a history there.

However the reason I am talking to you now is the posts on my talk page.

The short versio of this month:

  • SFR closed the AE case with 'is reminded' that civility is required everywhere, ie not just in MoS where the behaviour is documented.
  • Two hours later SFR posted to SMcCandlish's user page, in the same language. SMcCandlish said something rude and stomped over to my user page where, eight minutes later, (I have noticed since posting here) he accused me of:
  • not listening to anything he had to say (thus the quote of myself where I had said I would give it some thought even though I thought he was mistaken
  • lectured me on civility for a third time and the second time since absolutely everyone involved in the ANI that apparent triggered this told him that it was not that. (Newbie was offended by a contentious topic alert, to oversimplify).
  • said that there was nothing wrong with him (needlessly) lecturing me on civility, and
  • anyone else would have lectured me on civility.

Eight minutes after he was officially remined that civility applies at MoS and everywhere else, he posted several demonstrably false aspersions to my talk page, in the same thread where I and two other people have already said they were unfounded, unfounded.

Basically he doubled down on the same behavior I complained of at AE eight minutes after being reminded about the policy it violated, in wording that specifically included it.

That's the stripped down version. If you're wondering about the ping or the antisemitism or how demonstrably unfounded it was, that requires the links,

TL;DR of the TL;DR=he is the only person who (I guess) thinks that his posts on my talk page are true. Except for any uninvolved page watchers who may think that he must have some kind of point, or he wouldn't be this hostile. Hopefully that is clearer. Elinruby (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have been offline and may have limited access for the balance of the week. Just noticing I've seen this @Elinruby and will respond as soon as I'm able. Don't hesitate to proceed without my input Star Mississippi 01:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've ALL been busy, that's the problem Elinruby. talk) 23:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, you may as well close this. It's clear to me now why people don't ask you for your input. I certainly never will again. Elinruby (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but you'll have noticed I've not been as active on wp as I sometimes am and this wasn't at the top of my priority list. Unless you have any new information to share, then everything here is at this point stale, but if you think something needs input from other editors and the people you ask don't respond quickly enough for you then try asking at a forum that doesn't depend on that specific person's availability. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as you say, stale now. Feel free to delete. Elinruby (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bitcoin on a "Language and linguistics" 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 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

[edit]
The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For successfully dredging up a comprehensive and surprisingly compelling source list on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avon_Safety_Wheel BrigadierG (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring 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 17:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April music

[edit]
story · music · places

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places)? - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf,

Every time I need to visit a RFD page for some reason, I see you particiating in discussion so I know that you know more about the correct usage of redirects than I do! So, here is my request to you. I run a Quarry query to catch improper main space redirects to Draft space because while we have a lot of editors patrolling and draftifying articles, they don't all know that they should tag these main space>Draft space redirects CSD R2.

But there are some rather unusual redirects that pop up in every report. Take a look at the list here. I'm hoping that you could confirm that these are legit redirects from main space even though they may go to other namespaces of the project and if any of them are inappropriate, you could post them at RFD so a discussion could be had there on whether or not they are useful to editors or readers and abide by redirect guidelines. Thanks for spending a few minutes to look over the list, it's appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • T:TDYK, T:DYKT and T:tdyk were discussed at RfD in 2010 and snow kept. The latter may or may not be kept if discussed today, but I personally would recommend keeping.
  • T:MP was kept at RfD in 2020.
  • Longest Wikipedia Article was kept at RfD in 2012. I'd argue to retarget it if there was somewhere logical to point it, but I haven't found one. In the absence of that I'd argue to keep it as people will find what they're looking for at the target.
  • MOS:FAQ hasn't been discussed, but "MOS:" is an accepted WP:Pseudo namespace for shortcuts to the manual of style. As the target is an FAQ about the manual of style I can't imagine a discussion would arrive at any conclusion other than keep.
  • T:TDYKA also hasn't been discussed, but given the acceptance of the other T: shortcuts to DYK pages it's likely this would be kept too.
  • MOS:TITLETYPOCON is a new redirect to an active discussion. Whether it is useful or not will depend at least in part on the outcome of that discussion, so it's probably best left until we know what that is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I clearly came to the right person. You have an encyclopedic memory. Thanks for the thorough response. It's very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 08:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't memory it was a combination of talk pages and page history! Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan politics opened

[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May

[edit]

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

[edit]
Thanks for suggesting a move and deprecate at the RfD discussion for {{R from subtitle}} - it hadn't occurred to me as a possibility when I made the nomination, and I think it's a better option than the deletion I'd originally proposed :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 06:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

[edit]
Thank you for deleting that, that could have led to disaster for me. Now I know to be careful on the Internet. So have some bubble tea! Quirkykiana (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) 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 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina

[edit]

The AfD has now been closed as merge, as the proposer of the merge can you please clarify what content you wish merged to Kosovo–United Kingdom relations? Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted

[edit]

The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vaush on a "Language and linguistics" 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 05:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Light skin 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 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sangerpedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Sangerpedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31 § Sangerpedia until a consensus is reached. (Notification being sent to all who participated in the DRV.) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Twitter 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, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bisexual lighting 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 16:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sar-I-Bolan railway station

[edit]

Hello. A few weeks ago, you deproded this article with the following edit summary:

deprod. If sources cannot be found this should be merged or redirected, probably to the article about the line, rather than deleted

I was intending to do something similar (a blank and redirect), however I could not find sources for it, so I proposed deletion. From your edit summary it seems as though you were also unable to find sources. How did you determine this station's existence and the line on which it is located? If you did find this information, why did you not provide its source? XabqEfdg (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to do more than a cursory look last time and didn't find anything in English. I've spent another 10 minutes or so just now and the best I can do without Urdu is that the combination of the coordinates and https://www.railways.gov.pk/Detail/OTg0NzM1YzAtOWFhOC00MGIzLWFlMzEtNzY1MjZhOGFiZTMw would seem to put it on line ML-3, Rohri–Chaman Line. Specifically the Bolan Pass section. The latter article suggest the line is out of use, but it is unsourced. I've run out of time to do any more searching but hopefully that has helped a bit, but it seems you're going to need an Urdu speaker to find more. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates do seem to place it on the Bolan pass section of ML-3, and Google Maps satellite view shows some kind of structure there beside a railway. Where the coordinates came from is rather a mystery to me. Anyway, I found several sources confirming its existence and approximate location. The paucity of online (including archibed newspaper) sources is quite surprising for something which has ben in existence since at least 1897. I suppose there might be other, paper sources though.
Thank you for your prompt and useful reply. XabqEfdg (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woketard close

[edit]

I did not expect Woketard to be soft-redirected to Wiktionary by default when there was so much opposition to the soft redirection. At best, it should have been kept at Woke itself. Regarding the close statement of deletion requires an active consensus, searching for this exact text in WP and WP Talk namespaces brings up only this closure statement of yours. Searching for "active consensus" brings up lot of results in Arbitration requests, but with respect to usage in deletion, I found one or two such as again your vote in a Village Pump RfC, and WT:Deletion policy/Archive 45#BLP deletion where Hut 8.5 said At AfD you do normally need an active consensus in favour of deletion for something to be deleted. (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia:Consensus says Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity. Can you point me to where deletion requiring active consensus is coming from? Jay 💬 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no support at all for the status quo, so defaulting to that would definitely be wrong - see WP:NCRET. Deleting requiring an active consensus is a paraphrase of mine of the preference for alternatives to deletion and no consensus defaulting to a non-delete outcome, I'm surprised you didn't find any other uses of the term though (someone else used it or a similar phrase at RfD within the past 2-3 weeks I'm sure). You can also read it as a clear consensus, affirmative consensus, or other similar adjectives. Unanimity is not required, but I don't understand the relevance to this discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand NCRET and going for the next best target, but in this case I don't think it was fair considering there was clear opposition to the new target. If not deletion, you could have relisted it and have another look at it after a week, or closed it as No Consensus with no prejudice against renomination.
I could find just one other use of "active consensus" wrt deletion at RfD, and this again is from you, from a decade ago! Considering the alternative phrase "clear consensus", the only mention at WP:Deletion policy is for BLPs where there is "no clear consensus to keep". So I guess, what I'm still trying to understand is if the "deletion requires an active/clear consensus" is a guideline you are following, and if so, where is this coming from? The reason I mentioned "unanimity" is because I assumed unanimity in consensus is equivalent to clear consensus. Is it not? Jay 💬 07:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unanimity and clear consensus are not equivalent. Clear consensus, active consensus, definite consensus, affirmative consensus, etc. all just mean that there is a consensus that is, well, clear. i.e. there actually is a consensus and you don't need to squint or do mental gymnastics to find it. Of course a unanimous consensus is a clear consensus, but not all clear consensuses have to be unanimous. As noted, this is not a single specific guideline but a paraphrase of the combination of deletion policy, WP:ATD, WP:NCRET and long-established practice at RfD. It's no different to if I'd said "alternatives to deletion are preferred when there is no consensus between deletion and another option".
I could have relisted again, but it had already been open for three weeks and been relisted once so I didn't think doing so again would bring any consensus. None of the arguments for deletion offered any reason why soft redirection would be a bad thing, only that it wasn't necessary (very few redirects are necessary) while those arguing for the soft redirect explained it would be helpful. The arguments for deletion were more numerous but weaker, leading to the no consensus.
Exactly nobody supported the status quo, so no consensus default to keep was not an option open to me so I went with a standard no-consensus default to retarget, the only difference being the retarget was to Wiktionary (and thus a soft redirect) not to a different target on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear is a subjective word, and from your latest reply, I have understood you are using that word in consensus to mean "apparent", or something that anyone can see, without having to analyze. Hence by "active consensus" or "clear consensus" you would be meaning something much more than "general agreement" (as that is what the term "consensus" is).
My first search result in Google for "active consensus" gave me this github discussion that said .. "active consensus" whereby all members actively agree with each other. (emphasis mine) implying 100% agreement, 0% opposition, which is the same as unanimous which Wikipedia:Consensus says we don't follow. The second page of Google results has this Stanford University article on consensus in international organizations that says “active consensus” or unanimity. Since enwiki doesn't define these terms, and I didn't find anything specific at WP:ATD or WP:NCRET, while I feel it is fine to use such language in talk or discussion pages as a personal paraphrasing of your understanding of processes, using it in a Close summary suggests something more Wiki-specific.
When your close said deletion requires an active consensus, I felt you are espousing a guideline I wasn't aware of, that said - to delete anything on enwiki, you need a unanimous consensus. Now that it is "clear" (at least for me, unless you disagree) there is no such guideline, and you used the phrase as a justification for NCRET / ATD, I am fine with your closure statement. Jay 💬 11:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the arguments for deletion offered any reason why soft redirection would be a bad thing...: Usually at RfD, reasons against soft redirection are points 1, 2 and 4 from {{Wiktionary redirect}}, and conversely point 3 about a Wikt entry existing, is not the sole reason to create or keep the redirect. Newly created soft redirects, and hence that don't have sufficient statistics for pageviews, would need really good reasons for a Keep, and usually the deletion criteria cited here is lack of incoming links. Given less support and more opposition for the soft redirect, I wouldn't have expected that we would need to give explicit reasons for deleting. Rather, I would have expected reasons for justifying the redirect. In any case, if you relist, I can explicitly state why the soft redirect shouldn't be there.
I don't have an issue with the "No consensus". As I mentioned, my concern was with the default close, for a target that was disputed. If the target had less support, but no opposition, I wouldn't mind it as a default target. I would expect a default close to be non-controversial.
..so no consensus default to keep was not an option open to me so..., "me" being the keyword here. You had no obligation to close, unless you felt that any other closer would have closed the same way. Personally, I wouldn't make a default close for a target that had opposition. Jay 💬 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused whether you are still challenging the close or not, nor what your paragraph starting with the "none of the arguments" quote is arguing for or against? Regarding your final paragraph. Indeed I had no obligation to close, but someone has to and closing with a default to keep wouldn't have been an option for anybody else for exactly the same reason as it wasn't an option for me. It could have been relisted, but the likelihood is that it would come down to the same lack of consensus for deletion and lack of any support for the status quo just after another week or so of limbo. No consensus defaulting to delete is not a thing, no consensus defaulting to keep when everybody wants something other than the status quo is not an option. Retargetting to anywhere other than Wiktionary would be a supervote given that exactly none were suggested, which leaves only the no consensus retarget. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a request for arbitration

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Aspersions cast by Thryduulf and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Sandstein 15:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Barnstar
I award Thryduulf the Arbitration barnstar. Thank you for volunteering to help Wikipedia. . Jehochman Talk 02:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

[edit]

The Aspersions cast by Thryduulf case request has been declined and closed. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to dePRODing all the Indian Express Train Stub articles that I had PRODed

[edit]

The Express trains in India article already exists. Maybe a new List of Express trains in India article can be started if you want. But I don't think even listing these services has encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a database and these train services are not notable at all. Most of the articles consist of things like halts and coach compositions, both of which are volatile. Thus, I am going to nominate all these articles for AfD. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your choice, but I will recommend merging them all because while not everything in the articles is encyclopaedic there is no reason not to WP:PRESERVE what is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_municipalities_in_Maine

[edit]

Why does this article listing table, ordered by population, begin with Portland as #2, instead of #1? It follows in presumably correct sequence however a user always has to remember to subtract 1 from the ordered list to get an accurate rating of any municipality. I.E., Portland is noted as #2, but is really #1, etc. JackME (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It starts at 1 for me? I changed nothing about the table other than adding the conversions for the land area. If it is showing as starting at 2 for you then something is going wrong somewhere but I have no idea what where or why. Someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be able to help. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I guess it was my issue, possibly from an existing browser cache, because it does work correctly for me now. Sorry for the confusion. JackME (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starts at 1 for me too. This sounds very much like Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#List of cities proper by population density, where I didn't see a problem either. It may be a browser-specific thing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note re ideas

[edit]

hi. it is nice to meet you today, at ideas tab, at village pump. pls feel free to be in touch, re any ideas. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

[edit]

Since I used a diff by you in this ANI discussion, I think I have to notify you of it. But you're not in trouble. Loki (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of lakes of Yukon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caribou Lake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:MJ the Musical 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 12:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration committee election proposal

[edit]

Regarding this edit: as you've only used parameter three for the {{divbox}} template, no background colour nor title appears. If this is your intent, then would you consider just dropping the use of the template? It adds extra whitespace due to the padding and margin of the added <div>...</div> element, but without a visible title or bounding box, it looks like a layout problem. isaacl (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the formatting I used on the talk page last year. No idea where I copied that from but it would be from somewhere. Feel free to change it if you wish, I've not got particular attachment to how it is. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply! isaacl (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jinn on a "Language and linguistics" 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 02:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
  • Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed.
  • We plan to use the following schedule:
    • Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up
    • Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase
    • Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase
  • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
  • If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
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) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thryduulf/archive26&oldid=1256433343"