Archives
|
|
![]() | I use different email addresses for different purposes, so please read User:Thryduulf/Contact before sending me an email to ensure your message gets to the right place |
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
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).
|
|
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
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 wandering 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
As previously noted I not have the abilityI presume this is a typo and you mean "now? rather than "not"?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
Interface administrator changes
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
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
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 |
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
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
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
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
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
Ilisten to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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
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 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 |
---|
|
If needed, convenience links to proceedings mentioned |
---|
I probably missed some; please ping with any questions
|
Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 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:
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
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
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
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
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
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
Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in LeedsonSaturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.
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.
20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting a move and deprecateat 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
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 |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wishing Thryduulf a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!interstatefive 02:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
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
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
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
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).
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
.. "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.
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.
..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
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 |
The Aspersions cast by Thryduulf case request has been declined and closed. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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