User talk:Thryduulf

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Awards
Stubsensor award.jpg

For your help with April 21, 2005 Stubsensor cleanup project you are hereby given the Stubsensor award.
I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratschetalk 5 pillars (KC)
This PSY is awarded for being polite, courteous, and extremely helpful to myself and other users, and as such bieng a blessing for good mental health. Awarded by PhatePunk 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
For your excellent contributions to Wikipedia - it is those little things that make all the difference :-) --HappyCamper 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am giving you this banner star for all of your work at WP:RFD - Tideflat (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The Redirect Barnstar
is hereby awarded to Thryduulf for all the work put into contributing at Redirects for Discussion and maintaining the navigational parts of the project. Quiet background work that very few see, yet it has a great effect on the projects readers! Thanks for your work in the area, Taelus (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The Redirect Barnstar
is hereby awarded to you, Thryduulf, for closing nearly an entire page of discussions, but more importantly, for all of the other thankless jobs that you do. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to echo these thanks, as I think we are some of the only admins who set foot in RfD these days :P. Thanks for helping with the backlog, all the best. --Taelus (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Trophy.png
Fair and Helpful
Thank you so much for helping me with an article (I'm a beginner.) I have no idea what I'm doing but you helped to keep my article up after it was deleted. You also checked back up on it when the references were deleted, I just checked and saw you even helped me on listing them too, I wasn't sure how to do that either. Anyway, thank you. :] Ohthegunsofbrixton (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For exhibiting rational judgement on a certain list which caused considerable overreaction and worse case scenario concerns. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The Redirect Barnstar
Thanks for your (re)-explanation of why it [the Selby Wall redirect] was pointing where it was and why it should point to where it's now pointing Tonywalton Talk 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Redirect Barnstar Hires.png
The Redirect Barnstar
I hereby award User:Thryduulf this shiny Redirect Barnstar for their excellent work at WP:RFD. Lenticel (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png
The Technical Barnstar
For your unfailing patience and kindness dealing with VisualEditor related problems and the users struggling with them :). (also for the fantastic car analogy). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Original Barnstar Hires.png
The Original Barnstar
I appreciate I already gave you a barnstar for it, but I've just looked at the feedback page for the first time since stepping off my flight, and wow: you deserve another one :). Thanks for all you've done for the VE project thus far. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For sterling work above and beyond the call of duty at WP:VE/F. You're always there, logging defects, updating replies and always with politeness and calm. NtheP (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Precious

thinking of options
Thank you for quality pictures uploaded, for nominating to the news, for taking care of redirects and projects, for helpful proposals and thinking of options ("I can think of at least two options"), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Real Life Barnstar.jpg
The Real Life Barnstar
Yay! You're here at the [Wikimedia UK] office! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Crown of Portuguese Prince.png
Survey King!
You put absolutely hours of work into [the WMUK Members' Survey] and I am so so grateful! Really looking forward to finding out what worked and what didn't and making the results useful to the chapter! Thank you so much! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Arbitration Committee cases are inherently complicated matters. That your analysis of the case resulted in a suggestion widely accepted by participants and arbitrators alike, demonstrates it to be a brilliant idea. Congratulations! MarshalN20 | Talk 14:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Peace Barnstar 6.png
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Y'know what...
...Here's a barnstar. Consider this a token of my appreciation, on behalf of the project as a whole, for your contributions to this RfC, and for summarising a horribly complicated discussion into something that people could understand (and which slightly lessened my headache in closing it!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Special Barnstar Hires.png
The Special Barnstar
Thanks for the MASSIVE amount of work and time you put into the 2013 Membership Survey. It's really excellent and I hope its something [WMUK] builds on :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Real Life Barnstar.jpg
The Real Life Barnstar
Thank you very much for all your hard work on Wikipedia Takes UCL last week. It was an event from which we've taken many lessons and I believe that a good number of people had a very positive experience from it thanks to you and the team you managed to coordinate. Here's to the next one! ToniSant (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Real Life Barnstar.jpg
The Real Life Barnstar
Chris, I'm indebted to you for your help at the Marjon event. Gil asked me to pass on her thanks in particular for your "excellent and clear explanations of the technical aspects of copyright". Next time I'm looking for helpers for an event, you'll be top of my list. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Camera Barnstar Hires.png
The Photographer's Barnstar
For your extra effort in providing photos for an article that another Wikipedian is working on. Exemplary teamwork! Face-smile.svg w.carter-Talk 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png
'The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I've got to say, I've seen your comments about the place and you seem one of the more "rational observers" (if you'll pardon the pun) on the site. I think you have a good head on your shoulders. I wish others were like you! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Illegitimi non carborundum 7&6=thirteen () 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The Redirect Barnstar

Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! For your well-thought, detailed, and infuriatingly reasonable close here. Well done once again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator Barnstar Hires.png
The Admin's Barnstar
Congratulations making WP:EFH legit. JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Citation Barnstar Hires.png
The Citation Barnstar
For your excellent work on Sean Hughes' biography. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Chopin Sexuality[edit]

After thinking about it, I think you took a reasonable approach. What was important was to prevent edit-warring over whether the sub-article should exist. We shall see how the RFC is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

  • The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2021[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 07:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


Arbitration Case 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/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I take it from Bishonen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021). Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2021[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Cease WP:BLUDGEONING.[edit]

Your behavior at TfD right now falls well within attempting to bludgeon the process to death, and you're not going to get anywhere with your current methodology and actions at TfD. Please carefully read WP:BLUDGEONING, and decide for yourself if you are doing so. Your edits currently account for a disproportionate majority of the edits for "COI article-space templates", and I encourage you to back off, you're no longer contributing to the discussion what-so-ever. Arguing with every single delete voter is not going to get you, or anyone else, anywhere in the conversation. As a functionary and member of Wikimedia UK, you should know better than this. You are an official, and as such should know how to behave yourself, and should not need to be reminded by volunteers to keep yourself in check. Thank you. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have read, and re-read, WP:BLUDGEONING and I am happy that my comments do not violate it - Xeno explains it well in this comment. You will also note that my most recent comment (my only one in over a day) was not "arguing with a delete voter" (or even a person (it's not a vote) advocating keep, I am in favour of deleting the templates) but expressing a view in a valid meta-discussion.
If you believe the templates should not be deleted your time would be better spent actually refuting the arguments made in favour of deletion rather than complaining about being asked to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
So, to note, I am not here to discuss the merits of keep/delete. I am not even interested in doing so. I solely made this comment to ask you to correct your behavior. As for you claiming otherwise, I will note I reviewed and read through your arguments before writing this warning, and firmly believe you are doing what I stated. There is a limit to how much people want to repeat themselves to explain somethin'. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Expanding on the linked comment: a charge of bludgeoning (a behaviour covered by WP:DE) cannot be simply based on the number or volume of edits, it needs to be judged based on the disruptive character of those comments.
To force someone to restrict themselves to a certain number of edits or kilobytes is a risk to the consensus process (and unfair to chronic copyeditors who submit instead of preview! =).
In such a regime, irrational "votes" can overwhelm the process and disenfranchise participants if individuals can be said to have used up their right of reply and overstayed their welcome by comment volume alone without other evidence of disruption (IDHT, wikilawyering, etc.) being evidenced as well - which I don’t think can be said here.
Also- this is a hobby; concision is hard: I apologize that this comment is long because I did not have time to make it short.xenotalk 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Casagrandes 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 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible names for DS/GS[edit]

Hi Thryduulf, I was very glad to see your suggestion for a more descriptive name for ArbCom-authorized DS and community-authorized GS that doesn't include the word "sanction". This definitely has been on my mind for some time now. What are some alternatives that you would like? So far, I've come up with "special enforcement areas/zones", "topic areas under heightened scrutiny". I want to emphasize the what (this is a topic under scrutiny, tread carefully) more than the process (admins have additional discretion etc., which is less likely to be relevant for most editors who see a DS banner). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@L235: I shared all my best suggestions to date in my comment in the consultation, "topics under heightened scrutiny" isn't great but isn't bad, I don't like "zones". "Supplemental scrutiny topics" or "additional scrutiny topics" get the same across a bit more succinctly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential BLPTALK violation[edit]

Hi Thryduulf

Wondered if you could help with a WP:BLPTALK issue? On the talkpage of Northern Independence Party, an accusation of anti-semitism has been made against a living individual by an IP. They were challenged for a source, and the one provided is a Jewish Chronicle article which stated (correctly) that the individual was anti-zionist, but did not accuse him of anti-semitism. I am concerned that this violates BLPTALK and that it is potentially libellous under British law (where I reasonably believe both parties to be resident). Is there any way to delete this edit from the page and the record, and what procedure must be followed? I have also raised this at Swarm's page as I consider it probably urgent, so which ever of you see it first is welcome to advise. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I've just seen this and don't have time to look into it until probably tomorrow. For future reference, what you need to do in this situation is email the oversight team (see WP:OVERSIGHT), which I'll do on your behalf now. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, wasn't sure what to do. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes

removed AlexandriaHappyme22RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goths 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 13:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You like my tool?[edit]

——Serial 19:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that you expressed interest in my new tool. It is hard for me the judge the nature of this interest from that diff, but if you've been following my talk page, you may have seen the videos I posted showing five ways the tool can be used. Do any of these uses interest you? And if so, would you like to try to tool out? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in following what happens with your trial, but I don't meet the requirements to be part of it. I haven't seen the videos yet and I'm not in a position to view them right now, but I'll take a look and offer any feedback I have when I can. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. And if I don't start picking up volunteers soon, I may have to lower the barrier to entry. We'll see how it goes Face-smile.svg Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Emptying categories[edit]

What is you're opinion on so called "backdoor" emptying categories in order to get them deleted under C1? I'm asking because I know in the past you have pointed out about pages getting deleted "out of process" being problematic since there's no way for other users to check etc. There was a discussion last year at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 19#Where does it actually say you should not just empty a category you don't like? on this. There did seem to be consensus that if a category gets emptied because the pages didn't belong in the category that's OK and I'd also give an example of Category:Unparished areas in Northamptonshire that I created last year, it seems this year all the unparished areas have been parished (but the OS doesn't show this yet) so that being emptied was probably OK. I'm rather mixed on if it should be allowed or not, one side of me says its acceptable under BRD since if the category was only recently created or its deletion doesn't seem controversial its probably OK as long as the category is small. The other side of me says deleting categories should be discussed at CFD and indeed can be backdoor. I did however recommend that an editor can demand a full CFD if they object to a category being emptied even if newly created. I do feel (as I noted in the discussion) that if people feel emptying categories to get them deleted under C1 is generally inappropriate the best thing would be to repeal C1 and require all empty categories to go through CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of work with categories, so I'm not not the best person to ask this question of. However, in general if there are good faith objections to a speedy deletion nomination (for any reason) then speedy deletion must not be used and it should go to the relevant XfD. I haven't looked at the specific examples you've given, but if there are no articles about unparished areas in Northamptonshire because there are no longer any such areas, then I don't see why it would be problematic to delete the category for them. I have no opinion about the general utility of CSD criterion C1, but the general presumption is that it is the responsibility of the person wanting to change the status quo to demonstrate the need for/benefits from change. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2021[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:LISTGAP: avoid inserting blank lines between colon-indented parts of a comment.[edit]

Hello, I've just read the edit comment you left here about not inserting blank lines between colon-indented comments. Would my reading of the Accessibility#Lists section of the Manual of Style, that an acceptable solution for separating comments is to insert a line with the same number of colons, be correct? Quite a lot of the blank lines you removed were from among other editors' comments and weren't inserted by me, at least consciously. Do you know whether those lines actually appeared as the result of my editing?     ←   ZScarpia   12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that markup like
::Paragraph 1
::
::Paragraph 2
Is not preferred and I've seen other editors removing the blank lines. Whether that is for screen readers or some other reason I'm not certain. If you want to separate paragraphs like that, then using Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2 is better. From memory, I tagged you as you appeared to intentionally insert the blank lines while others were not clearly added intentionally but I've not checked again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
In any case, using the colon technique doesn't work: a blank line doesn't appear in the output. If I'd wanted to insert a blank line to separate out this reply from your comment, what would be acceptable ways of doing it? I'm assuming that just inserting blank lines around comments are no more acceptable than inserting them within. When I clicked on Preview, the Wikipedia parser(?) itself added in a blank spacing line; when I irst added this reply, it followed on directly from your previous comment. I suspect that may be the root cause of the problem: the parser adds space where I don't want it and deletes it from where I do. After performing previews, I usually re-format spacing back to the way I want it, which is why I add blank lines.     ←   ZScarpia   13:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
You should not be adding blank lines for any reason. If indentation is not enough (although I don't recall ever encountering that) then use <p> or <br> markup. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I note that MOS:Accessibility#Lists says: "Do not use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics." (the spacing line before this reply was again inserted there by the 'parser', not me)     ←   ZScarpia  
The technique described above by Thryduulf at 12:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC) is recommended by RexxS (talk · contribs) and approved by Graham87 (talk · contribs). That's good enough for me. What is not acceptable is leaving lines that are completely blank in the edit window. Semantically, this
::Paragraph 1
::
::Paragraph 2
makes three items in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list), the second item being empty (and which is filtered out by the MediaWiki servers, so it never reaches your browser), whereas this
::Paragraph 1

::Paragraph 2
makes (i) one item in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list); (ii) one item in one list (itself nested in the single item of another list) - in this case the two outer lists are separate, and semantically unrelated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Autism Speaks 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, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"British King who abdicated" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British King who abdicated. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#British King who abdicated until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"King killed by a red hot poker" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King killed by a red hot poker. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#King killed by a red hot poker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"British King who got his head cut off" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British King who got his head cut off. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#British King who got his head cut off until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of King killed by a red hot poker[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on King killed by a red hot poker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"2004 Republican presidential candidates" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2004 Republican presidential candidates. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#2004 Republican presidential candidates until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"HotH" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect HotH. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#HotH until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Attempt at resolving our dispute[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf. As you know, I am User:NotReallySoroka, and this time I would like to achieve a compromise with you.

Yes, I should indeed have judged a redirect solely by its merit, instead of the intentions behind it. I still stand by my observation that you have made a pointy response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass, but I should have refrained from committing a WP:POINTY act just to get my point (pun intended) across. I also admit that my mass nominations against your redirects could be seen as targeting you instead of the redirects, although I did nominate a few other redirects that you did not create. For that, I apologise.

As for RfDs on redirects you created, such as "British King who has his head cut off", "British King who abdicated", and such, I will still have the RfD running but I would commit myself to cease any new commenting (I might still refactor myself, but you may roll them back if you see it as too far), and I ask that you stop new comments on my existing points, too, unless it is a refactoring. In a reverted edit I refactored a few statements of mine regarding your redirects, so as to reduce my pointiness. I hope that you may do the same.

If in the future (until a time we both agree) I see one of your redirects, and I see it as pointy, I commit to keep them away from RfD. Instead, I will alert it to you along with my reasoning. Then, you can either consider G7'ing it, RfD it, or fix it, among others. In reciprocality, please notify me should you perceive one of my redirects as pointy and harmful - I will make the action.

I hope that this no-fault, voluntary agreement will be a good middle ground for our compromise, as well as a good start for seeking a consensus (RfC maybe?) about the fate of such redirects. At the end, we both just want Wikipedia to improve. Let's compromise, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • FWIW, when I reverted the refactorings I hadn't seen this comment. J947messageedits 00:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • OK. I assume good faith, J947. I hope that you would do the same with refactoring when I refactor my replies to you, which would be later. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @NotReallySoroka: I've seen this. I'm not awake enough to properly respond right now, but I will do so before editing the RfD discussions again. Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I have refactored it a bit more. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Two heads up, sir:
  1. I believe that I have demonstrated my willingness to abide by the above terms, seeing that I have made no new comments at the RfDs.
  2. I have retired and is currently waiting for a self block (User talk:Bishonen#Applying for Release to Elsewhere) Please take a look at my request, grant it (if you do not mind and if you can choose to not recuse over that), and take a note at user page where I talked more about my retirement.
Thank you for your contribution, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been rather busy away from Wikipedia yesterday and today so I've not had chance to look in detail. I'm hoping to get time this evening. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@NotReallySoroka: I continue to reject your assertion that my actions were at all POINTY but I accept your apology regarding the apparent targetting (and yes, I was too firm in my assertion in that regard). I do intend to continue refuting what I see as incorrect arguments at the RfD and will not be editing my old comments, but if you do not make any new comments I will not be responding to you. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

CSD Query[edit]

Hello, Thryduulf,

I see you've commented at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion a fair amount so I thought I'd approach you with a question rather than starting up a discussion on the talk page. I'm getting mixed messages about restoring CSD G5s. One editor stated that it is okay to do so if the new editor would "take responsibility" for the edits of the blocked sockpuppet. But today, I went to WP:REFUND where the patrolling admin declined to restore a CSD G5 page that was requested. You've been editing for (wow) 16 years and I wondered where you came down on this topic. Thanks in advance. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If the only reason for deletion was G5 (i.e. it wasn't also a copyvio or something like that) then I see absolutely no reason why a refund would be denied if the requested was explicitly prepared to accept responsibility. After all G5 is a "may" delete not a "must" delete situation, and if a user in good standing believes they are beneficial to the encyclopaedia then we should not delete (or undelete) the content. If the content is simple though (something you can easily recreate without much effort) then it's usually going to be less drama all round just to recreate it.
If a REFUND request has been declined and you still want the content undeleted then you can make a request at DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, what happened was yesterday a sockpuppet who was very prolific in the area of Asian pop was identified and all of their pages were tagged CSD G5s. I deleted the ones where they were the sole contributor, untagged the ones where there were multiple contributors, but several editors who also work on content creation in this area objected to the deletions, one after the pages were tagged and today after the articles had been deleted. I've restored stale drafts and contested PRODs before but I hadn't encountered a challenge on a CSD G5 so this was a new one for me. Some editors have extremely strong feelings about obliterating all the work of sockpuppets so I just was looking for a confirmation or explanation, both of which you provided. Thank you, Thryduulf. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Retargeting redirects[edit]

Hi Thryduulf. I asked a question at WT:RFD ("Retarget procedure") but didn't really get a response, might be an inactive venue. iirc you're active around redirects so figure I'd ask here. If an RM finds consensus to retarget a redirect, what's the procedure to do that? I'm guessing just changing the target is bad because it would mean all incoming links now go to a page the writer didn't intend to link to. So are there tools/bots to change the incoming links first? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly it sounds odd that an RM would find consensus to usurp a redirect if the links to that redirect were intended for a different topic - was this brought up in the discussion? If it did however, then yes the links should be updated and a hatnote added to the page now at the redirect. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a tool that could mass update the links but I've never used one myself, maybe WP:AWB could do it? If not maybe asking at WP:VPT or WP:BOTREQ will get an answer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
For context the specific redirect I mean is WP:CR as a result of Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests#Requested_move_22_March_2021 and the section immediately above that one. In the earlier RM editors didn't want to use "Requests for closure" since it lacked a suitable acronym (WP:RFC), so I proposed Wikipedia:Closure requests and hijacking WP:CR and editors seemed to be happy with that. Though, I'm not sure how to technically implement the retargeting of WP:CR. I could probably BRFA a bot to update the incoming links I guess, but I was assuming RMs that might result in the context of existing incoming links changing isn't an uncommon use case (eg when a page is disambiguated) so a tool might already exist for something like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I just realised it's at RfD now (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_21#Wikipedia:CR). I guess this can take a pause for now till there's a consensus there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Roman equivalent[edit]

Thank you for actually pulling the trigger on this one, which should have been done two relists ago. I don't like drama or the spotlight - hence why I edit as an IP address - but I was prepared to close the discussion myself as no consensus if there was another useless relist. I'm glad to see that no such thing had to happen. I hope you will be equally bold against equally useless relists in the future, when I don't have a similar stake. Have a nice day. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed EnchanterCarlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2021[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 04:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicholas Wade 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 18:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update[edit]

Dear Thryduulf,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Could you please cease personal attacks such as suggesting here that I am deliberately ignoring policy. Discuss the contribution, not the contributor. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting you are ignoring policy when all the evidence points to you ignoring policy is not a personal attack. If you want to me to comment on your arguments then you have to actually present some that are not just repetition of the arguments multiple people have commented on multiple times already. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Disagree obviously. In fact it seems to me to be the other way around. And it's a behavioural problem IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You are of course free to disagree with the evidence but doing so does not change the evidence, nor does it turn a factual statement into a personal attack. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support![edit]

Wikipedia20 animated Incubator.gif Hello, Thryduulf:

We wanted to THANK YOU for expressing your support in our grant application to develop Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators and for volunteering to take part in the project. We have great news to share: our proposal has been approved!

In the following weeks, we will be processing some paperwork and refining our next steps for this project. We aim to give updates so you can follow the development of the project and you can understand when and how you can contribute!

But for now, we wanted to thank you and invite you to celebrate with us!

Both Diegodlh and myself are very thankful for your support. --Scann (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary![edit]

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021[edit]

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 02:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Invalid G4[edit]

Greetings. I believe this deletion is not a valid application of G4; the article needed to go to AfD, or have the deletion declined outright. The version you deleted had 19 references; 15 of those date from after the AfD; it is in no way "sufficiently identical" to the version deleted at AfD. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

None of those references addressed the reasons why it was deleted at the AfD, but I'll restore it and send it to AfD (it might take me a few minutes though). Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: now at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munawar Faruqui (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I will attempt to examine the coverage later. I want to note that my count of the sources was mistaken; some of those are retrieval dates, not publication dates; but there are, nonetheless, later sources, so the substance of my point stands, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
removed HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2021[edit]

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 14:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)