Open main menu
Awards
Stubsensor award.jpg

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

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

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

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

Contents

J'aime aller a la pecheEdit

For entertainment, a Napoleonic marching song - J'aime l'oignon frît à l'huile.

(It may be time to do some archiving, your Talk Page is getting laggy.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I'll take a look at that video after I've done some archiving. Then I'll try and figure out why the awards are taking up the top of the page rather than being a side bar... Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
You might like Template:Barnometer as a less flamboyant way of bragging. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
They used to be (and should still be) in a narrow column on the right hand side of the page so they are not flamboyant. Unfortunately at some point the code that did this has stopped working and I can't figure out why or how to get it to work again. I've asked at the help desk for assistance from someone more skilled than me. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I like all peaches too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: This is about liking fishing! Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I know... thirty-some years ago we referred to the equipment as a "can of peaches". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pagesEdit

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and added a source to back up your recent addition to September 30. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Geoffrey HayesEdit

 On 1 October 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Geoffrey Hayes, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hayes imageEdit

The copyright warning you placed on File:Geoffrey Hayes.jpg claims that there is "no evidence of attempts to find a freely licensed image". Short of videoing myself diligently searching on CC Search and Google images (which I just did this morning), I don't see how I can satisfy that burden of proof. Suffice to say: I looked, I couldn't find anything. Cnbrb (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What else have you done to see if there was a freely licensed image or an image that could be changed to be freely licensed? Have you enquired anywhere whether people have photos of him not yet uploaded would be willing to do so under a free license? If they had been dead 10 years that would be different, but the presumption that a freely licensed image is or could be available doesn't magically end at the moment of death - it gradually fades over a period of years. You also have not addressed the second point at all - we don't use free use images for simple identification. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Having to wait 10 years before posting an image of a deceased person is a new one on me. I haven't seen that rule on Wikipedia, but maybe I've missed something. I researched free images as described above, but no, I haven't contacted individual people. Should I be writing to Thames TV? Does Wikipedia actually expect editors to go to those lengths? I consider my efforts a reasonable level of research; I drew a blank and uploaded in WP:good faith.
On your second point, I think you mean non-free images? And if we don't use non-free use images for simple identification, why does the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard offer that option? "This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive. This is an historic photograph or other depiction of a person who is no longer alive. It will be used as the primary means of visual identification of that person in the article about them." Is it just setting editors up for a fall? Cnbrb (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Six months is typically what we'd wait before uploading images of people before they're cold. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you - well at least I have some sort of guideline now. I'll try to remember in future. Cnbrb (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've complained previously about that upload wizard option. Yes it is setting people up for a fail if they use it for people who are only just dead - it should have a note that six months post-mortem is about the earliest you will get away with, but it depends how prominent the person was, how recent they were active in public, where they were (someone living in central London is more likely to have been photographed than someone living on a private island in the Seychelles or a village in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or someone who was in prison for the last 25 years of their life). Geoffrey Hayes only retired a few years ago, was living in the UK and right until the end he spoke of still being recognised - did nobody take his photograph? By all accounts he was a very nice and friendly person so would likely have posted if asked - especially when doing shows. Have you enquired whether the copyright owner of this photograph on Twitter will release the photo under a free license? Find that took less than 5 minutes, so there are likely others out there that are less easy to find. Maybe his agent will release a photo under a free license if asked a respectful time after the funeral. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
OK i take the point. It would just be nice to have some more reliable Wikipedia guidelines to that effect. WP:NFCI makes no mention of a reasonable timescale after death. At the moment, it's far too easy for a good faith addition to Wikipedia like this to be result in a rap over the knuckles, which is bound to put off newbies (fortunately I've been around for years so I know the score). Perhaps you might consider inputting your views into getting the guidelines updated so it's a bit clearer. Go ahead and delete Geoffrey. I'll, er, zip up now. Cnbrb (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with you about the guidelines, but I've long given up trying to get anything related to fair use images changed to make things clearer for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with our polices and guidelines in the area. I do enough shouting in to the darkness in favour of readers and new users at RfD, I don't have the energy to do it there too, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thryduulf, FYI: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Images of deceased persons, now a formal RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

  Administrator changes

  JustlettersandnumbersL235
  BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

  Interface administrator changes

  Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

  Oversight changes

  Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations)Edit

Please comment on Talk:USATC S160 ClassEdit

Please see my comment there. Tony May (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2018Edit





Headlines
  • Albania report: Collections of Museums in Albania
  • Armenia report: GLAM+Wikidata
  • Australia report: WikiTour AU
  • Brazil report: Developing tGLAM: a landing-page generator for GLAM initiatives
  • France report: European Heritage Days; Linked data for archaeology; Paris: Edit-a-thon at Mobilier National
  • Germany report: History of Women and Democracy, Wikipedia-Culture-Ambassadors and two GLAM-on-Tour-stations in just four weeks
  • Macedonia report: Wiki camps in Macedonia
  • Malaysia report: Wikipedia for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museum
  • Mexico report: Open GLAM Mexico 2018
  • Netherlands report: >20,000 press photographs 1940-1990 uploaded, GLAM Wiki Meeting, Aerial Photographs, GLAM-Wiki Manual & Wikipedia Course for Historical Societies
  • Norway report: Women in Red; Researhers Days 2018; The 2019 edition of #wikinobel
  • Poland report: Archival photographs and literary knowledge enrich Polish Wikipedia
  • Serbia report: Impact of GLAM seminars: Decentralization of GLAM activities
  • Sweden report: Wikidata P3595 Biografiskt lexikon för Finland; Student Project at the Nordic Museum; Learning about sources on Swedish Wikipedia
  • UK report: Botanical illustrations and Wiki Loves Monuments in Scotland
  • USA report: Back to school
  • Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 30, August–September 2018
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata Tour Down Under
  • Calendar: October's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sourcesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ITNEdit

You’ve left the Soyuz pic but removed the blurb. Stephen 10:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the procedure for this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Remove the image, no suitable picture that I can see, so image-free ITN. Stephen 10:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Done, sorry about that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Actually, are you OK with protecting a satellite image of Leslie, and using that? I’m on mobile otherwise I’d help. Stephen
Or if you’re not confident in that, you may want to re-add the last removed item for balance. Stephen 10:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've uploaded the hurricane image. The right side of the page is already longer than the left, but this seems mostly due to a large OTD box. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the image helps balance. Thanks for adding it, I made a couple of tweaks you may want to check. Stephen 10:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Chicago Fire redirect recreationEdit

I'm not sure you saw the rationale that @Tavix: used when deleting the redirects that you created, but hey were initially created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Anything that a blocked user creates via sockpuppetry should be deleted. Local consensus should not overrule block evasion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I'm not sure you saw the part of my rationale where I stated that Anyone in good standing may recreate. The block evasion has been taken care of by my deletion of the redirects, but it doesn't preclude someone else from creating what they see as a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Walter Görlitz: Firstly pages created by users in violation of a ban may (not must) be deleted. Secondly, as Tavix explicitly noted in his closing summary, any editor in good standing is free to recreate content that was deleted because of its author. The consensus of the discussion was clearly that these are good redirects, but if you disagree strongly then nominate them at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I saw and wholeheartedly disagree. I have had this argument before and just give up debating it, but you've just made a sockmaster happy by having him get his way. I expect absolutely no action from you because you are chanting the "redirects are cheap" mantra. If you don't agree, fine. I hope you buy another sociopath a cup of coffee to make their day they way you've made this sockmaster's day. No need to ping me to reply, I disagree with your position as much as you disagree with mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair assumption to make since the sockpuppet didn't create the redirects outright, they were the result of a couple of page moves. The sockpuppet wanted the title of Chicago Fire Soccer Club to be Chicago Fire (soccer club), but they didn't get what they wanted since the article was moved right back. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Woodhead, Hamilton, ScotlandEdit

Hi, with regard to the above, I created a multiple merge proposal for several unreferenced stub articles of neighbourhoods in Hamilton. The IP user (nothing to do with me) did the merge a month later, I know that's considered a bit soon for such actions but given the minimal activity on the article it was unlikely that anyone was going to look at it and bring it up to scratch so I was happy enough. There was nothing added to the parent article as the Woodhead information was trivial (it has houses of uncertain age, a pub and a bus route) as well as unsourced, it would not add anything of value. Could you please review this and either restore the merge or give me a shout explaining why it shouldn't happen. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: I have no opinion on whether the merge should or should not happen. My focus was on cleaning up the mess left by the IP user who redirected a couple of dozen articles (of various lengths and qualities) with an edit summary that indicated content had been merged. However in no case had any content been merged, so the edit summary was misleading and information was lost from the encyclopaedia. If there has been no opposition to a merge advertised on both pages after a decent time (circa three months should be fine, obviously you don't need to wait that long if there is active support for a merge) then go ahead and perform the merge (remembering to correctly attribute the content, see WP:MERGETEXT). If there is no information to merge, then make it clear that what you doing is redirecting not merging. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
OK no problem thanks, I'll leave it til the end of the year and then (assuming no change) redirect; I think some of the other articles had a bit more info (but not enough for standalone article) so if adding into Hamilton will add+attribute for as appropriate. Crowsus (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN researchEdit

Thanks for doing such a good and objective job there. Not only does it inform the current discussion, but it provides really useful evidence should this ongoing silliness rear its head again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I intend to complete September so there is a full month to refer to, and if I get time, work backwards from there too. I don't plan on doing October until there is a bit of distance for objectivity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool, it's so much better to have objective evidence than just instinctive reaction to rely upon. Keep up the great work, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.

Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changesEdit

Let's work togetherEdit

  • The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
  • The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
  • If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

  Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM?Edit

Hi Thryduulf, could you please please please consider running for ArbCom again? We really need people like you on the committee, and you were an excellent, fair, knowledgeable, no-drama Arb. Please consider serving again. Right now there are only three people running to fill six positions (and only one of them is an admin). The deadline for nominations is a few days from now. Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't really considered it this year, but will think again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: October 2018Edit





Headlines
  • Belgium report: Erbstuecke edit-a-thon; Women in Tech edit-a-thon; Wiki Club Brussels; Wikidata workshop + party
  • Brazil report: "There is no reason not to participate in a GLAM-Wiki initiative": an interview with the director of the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy
  • Estonia report: Estonian art and geoscience collections finding their way to Commons
  • Finland report: (RE)Photographic autumn
  • France report: GLAMWiki 2018 Tel Aviv; City of Grenoble
  • Germany report: GLAMorous Conferences
  • Netherlands report: ‘More Gelders Heritage available via Wikimedia’ by Erfgoed Gelderland; Writing week Friesland; Wiki Techstorm
  • Norway report: Wiki Loves Monuments and wikinobel
  • Poland report: Heirlooms - locally and internationally
  • Serbia report: The growing GLAM
  • Sweden report: Roundtripping Project, Books Import and Wikidata Imported to SOCH
  • Switzerland report: Built heritage conservation on Commons; les sans pagEs at a Modern art museum
  • UK report: Wikidata in Oxford
  • USA report: Wikiconference North America Culture Crawl
  • WMF GLAM report: Documentation survey, Structured Data on Commons consultations, blog posts and conferences
  • Calendar: November's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Thryduulf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Article unblockEdit

Hiya, as I mentioned, I would like an admin to unblock the page 'Frisco (rapper)' so that I can create it with the text in my sandbox. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jwslubbock: I've moved the draft to Frisco (rapper) and added some basic categories, but I don't know if more/better ones are needed. I've left the other history at your sandbox. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WMUK techiesEdit

Hi, who are the techies at wmuk:? I've left a note at wmuk:Engine room#Watchlist broken but the page doesn't seem to attract much traffic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

An email to wikimediauk-l will probably get more (and the right) eyes on it. -- KTC (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
And I've just sent such an email. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

  Administrator changes

  Al Ameer sonRandykittySpartaz
  BosonDaniel J. LeivickEfeEsanchez7587Fred BauderGarzoMartijn HoekstraOrangemike

  Interface administrator changes

 Deryck Chan

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

  Obituaries


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your statementEdit

To my knowledge, jytdog is not an administrator, don’t think he ever was one either. Your Arb request statement makes this claim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: a slip of the brain that I've now corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbComEdit

You are mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrator_BU_Rob13_at_WP:ARCA 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom statisticsEdit

Hello, Thryduulf,

I just stumbled across Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute which I find fascinating but then I like to read 10 year old ArbCom cases to learn about the development of the Wikipedia community. Do you think you will be keeping this page updated? Anything I can do to help? Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to update it please do - it's not something I have any ownership of after all (it's in project space for a reason). It's not high on my list of priorities at the moment so I wont likely be getting back to it soon, but never say never. Thryduulf (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Just thought I'd ask you about the background of the page. We'll see if I can add anything to it from 2015-2018. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus JudaeorumEdit

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2018Edit





Headlines
  • Albania report: Wiki Photo Walk Albania 2018; Wiki Loves Monuments Albania
  • Armenia report: Singing Wikipedia; Photographs by Vahan Kochar
  • Brazil report: Diverse milestones for the Brazilian community
  • Denmark report: Intercontinental digitisation efforts
  • Estonia report: Making contacts both internationally and in Estonia
  • Finland report: Art and edit-a-thons
  • France report: Bibliothèque publique d’information; 3D museum collections on Wikimedia Commons
  • Indonesia report: Conserving and digitizing texts in West Sumatra
  • Macedonia report: Wiki Training at National and University Library "St. Clement of Ohrid"
  • New Zealand report: Equity, Wikidata, and the New York Times
  • Norway report: Collaboration with The National Archives of Norway
  • Philippines report: Wiki Loves Art
  • Poland report: Archival image uploads, student collaborations and international projects
  • Serbia report: Photo finish of the WIR's
  • Sweden report: The Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Library data starts to take shape; Learning Wikipedia at the Archives; Wikimedia Commons Data Roundtripping
  • UK report: Sum of All Astrolabes
  • USA report: Wikidata Workshop at Pratt School of Information; Wikidata Presentation for the New York Technical Services Librarians; Wikipedia Asian Month; Cleveland Park Wikipedia Edit-a-thon; Historic Ivy Hill Cemetery Workshop
  • Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 31, October–November 2018
  • WMF GLAM report: Welcoming Satdeep Gill; Structured Data on Commons; WikiCite
  • Calendar: December's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Merry MerryEdit

  Happy Christmas!
Hello Thryduulf,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Paddy AshdownEdit

 On 23 December 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paddy Ashdown, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho HoEdit

ϢereSpielChequers 23:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!Edit

merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Thryduulf, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Whispyhistory (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry ChristmasEdit

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Thryduulf!Edit

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


Administrators' newsletter – January 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

  Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

  Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

PolyisobutyleneEdit

I saw your complaint about polyisobutylene. "The article isn't perfect by any means - as a non-chemist it tells me almost nothing and it didn't link to either of the above targets". Here's the deal: I dont aim for perfection. My first and often my only goal is to mount something credible for experts with an authoritative reference. From such skeletal articles, we slowly add more information over timet. From the short article, a non-expert can glean that polyisobutylene (i) is a polymer (ii) made from isobutene, and (iii) somehow associated with plasticizers and adhesives. That should be enough information for 99% readers, but if you can think of something else that is needed, please say so. Thanks for making the links.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That criticism seems to have come across more harshly than I intended, for which I apologise. I agree there is more for non-experts than I implied - thank you for starting the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Unclosed RfDEdit

Take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_31#Spicy_meatball. I was about to close it as No Consensus, but noticed you removed the RfD tag on December 31st, apparently having closed it as Retarget, but the discussion remained open at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 18 and was relisted by Deryck Chan (ping!). Thoughts all? ~ Amory (utc) 17:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Amory: My close as retarget edit conflicted with Deryck relisting it. I asked for his opinion on his talk page but the reply came too late for me to do anything (I was mostly offline for a few days) and then I forgot about it. I wouldn't close it as retarget now, based on what has been said post-relisting but I still think there was a (weak) consensus to retarget before then but retargetting was also entirely appropriate. I don't know what the best solution is, but as no-consensus doesn't preclude a bold retargetting leaving it as and reclassifying my action as bold might work? Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That works for me, good idea. I'll take care of it, thanks. ~ Amory (utc) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2018Edit





Headlines
  • Armenia report: Cooperation with Yerevan Drama Theatre Named After Hrachia Ghaplanian; Singing Wikipedia (continuation); Photographs by Vahan Kochar (continuation)
  • Australia report: 2019 Australia's Year of the Public Domain
  • Belgium report: Writing weeks German-speaking Community; End of year drink; Wiki Loves Heritage photo contest
  • Brazil report: Google Art and GLAM initiatives in Brazil
  • India report: Collaboration with RJVD Municipal Public Library
  • Italy report: Challenges and alliances with libraries, WLM and more
  • Macedonia report: Exhibition:"Poland through photographs" & Wikipedia lectures with children in social risk
  • Malaysia report: Technology Talk and Update on Wikipedia @ National Library of Malaysia
  • Portugal report: Glam Days '18 at the National Library of Portugal
  • Sweden report: Hats 🎩🧢👒🎓
  • UK report: Oxford
  • USA report: Holiday gatherings and visit to Internet Archive
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata reports
  • WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons: pilot projects and multilingual captions
  • Calendar: January's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

VisualEditorEdit

Since this doesn't really have anything to do with the arbitration case, I'm responding here. I've never used VisualEditor;(*) I'll presume it does a reasonable job at editing tables without disturbing hand-crafted style markup. This was a few years ago but I'll guess that VisualEditor's handling of tables has been stable for a while now. (*) My first preference is to revert undesired edits to ensure none of the desired content is touched. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

2019Edit

 


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Rose v Royal College of PhysiciansEdit

 On 24 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rose v Royal College of Physicians, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1701, the apothecary William Rose was charged with illegally practising physick on a butcher? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rose v Royal College of Physicians. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rose v Royal College of Physicians), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

ARCA noticeEdit

An arbitrator has proposed a motion on a clarification request to which you are a party. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#The Troubles: motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Re:Manchester meetupEdit

Hi! Thanks for the invitation. It sounds great! I have signed up. If you also want to have a beer before June 2019, I won't object. :) --Góngora (Talk) 04:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

June is the first time I'm likely to be in the northwest but I'm at the London and Oxford meetups most months! Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Noted. :) I will probably see you there then. We are also planning to run an edit-a-thon here at the University of Manchester library in mid-March. --Góngora (Talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Góngora: Feel free to set up another meetup. There are Wikipedians around the north west or within easy reach (there used to be a dozen or so of us who would meet for a pint every couple of months but several of us moved away or got busy in our personal lives). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point - if you want to set up a Manchester meet to happen before June just move the page I started to /37 and fix the links. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am a bit busy with my PhD to organise something like that (and I am already involved in the organisation of the edit-a-thon in March). I was thinking about something more informal, but thank you both for the suggestion, and thanks Thryduulf for taking the initiative. See you in June. :) --Góngora (Talk) 15:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2019Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

In case it helpsEdit

Hi Thryduulf, your statement reminds me of this case. I'm not sure if that is the case you were trying to remember though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That is almost certainly the one, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for closingEdit

Thanks for closing the CRAPWATCH RFDs. They've been interfering with navigation for over half a month now. It was maddening. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Feel free to recreate the talk page shortcuts if they're used, leaving the {{old rfd}} notes below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Why, were they deleted? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see. Yeah I've updated those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a good way to have both a note of an old RfD discussion and a working talk page redirect. I figured that as nobody mentioned the talk pages (and had to create one anyway) I'd just put the template there and let the redirects be recreated if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that done with a script? If so, there could likely be updates made to the script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't use scripts, so I can't say whether updates are needed or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is notEdit

I appreciate you got an edit conflict so didn't perhaps read why I wrote above your text. But WP:NOTCENSORED is clearly in the "Encyclopedic content" and not the "Community" sections of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Perhaps you could read what I wrote, and reconsider some of what you wrote. -- Colin°Talk 21:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I got an edit conflict with you posting on the MfD. And it seems we reach similar conclusions. -- Colin°Talk 22:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2019Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

X3 proposalEdit

I suggest reading WP:CLOSE and not trying to buck the obvious. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I am familiar with WP:CLOSE and note that the proposal is still under active discussion with points in opposition that have not been addressed by supporters. You also need to remember that editors may not remove speedy deletion templates from pages they create. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely I can request you take it to TfD. As an Admin you should be able to assess consensus not running interference on a proposal that has passed. The template is clearly labeled as being for testing, and is needed for setting up twinkle correctly. No one is using it and no one needs to be bothered by it. Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As an admin I can asses consensus and can tell that the discussion has not concluded and there are concerns that have not yet been addressed. If you wish to contest the speedy deletion of a page you have created then you need to do it in the same way that every other editor: explain on the talk page why it should not be deleted. CSD criterion T2 explicitly applies to speedy deletion templates for things that are not speedy deletion criteria. Testing of CSD templates can only come after the criterion is formally approved, if it is approved. I should not be needing to explain this to someone so experienced, but it seems you are so determined to get these pages deleted you have forgotten that you must get explicit consensus to do so first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CenturyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Polyisobutylene (2)Edit

Hi. The Polyisobutylene page has a RfD tag which seems to be a leftover from a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Polyisobutene, which you started and closed, so maybe you know what to do with this one? If not, I'll open a RfD. Thanks - Nabla (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Nabla: My guess is that I meant to add it to the same RfD as Polyisobutene given they had the same target but maybe forgot? I don't have time to investigate further at the moment, but it probably is worth discussing so the best thing is probably to just overwrite my failed nomination with a new one for today, leaving a message for the Chemistry project. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    OK, thought so, done so (and fixed the heading as there is an equal one up in the pages, so I may link to here) - Nabla (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting at MfD?Edit

I've never seen that before. Can you point to some policy that allows this or are you just being novel? Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: It's uncommon, but nothing I've ever seen about deletion sorting indicates that it is not allowed to be used on any particular type of discussion - indeed why would it be? Informing potentially interested editors in a neutral manner is generally encouraged - a well attended discussion leads to a stronger consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration NoticeEdit

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal Issues 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, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

XenophobiaEdit

I didn't want to comment (seriously) in that drama-ridden thread, but I did want to tell you that your analysis and the way you expressed it was close to perfect.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, although the whole dispute could seriously do with some attention from uninvolved admins. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, Thryduulf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 00:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America1000 00:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I noticed your comment at ANI. I would prefer for the header about me to remain separate, rather than intermingled with another discussion. As such, the thread about me will remain as such, rather than as a subsection in another section about other matters such as "Legacypac and portals" and "Admin OhanaUnited behavior". My actions are not related to those threads. North America1000 12:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I'll strike that part with a link here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration, and happy editing. North America1000 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Issues RFArbEdit

This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI Help requestedEdit

Could you please give some assistance to this thread on ANI? It's going around and around and going nowhere. Full disclosure, I got your name from the ANI history as you were the last admin to edit. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:43 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2019Edit





Headlines
  • Albania report: WikiFilmat SQ - new articles about the Albanian movie industry!
  • Armenia report: Art+Feminism+GLAM, Collaboration with Hovhannes Toumanian museum
  • Australia report: Art+Feminism 2019 in Australia
  • Brazil report: The GLAM at USP Museum of Veterinary Anatomy: a history of learnings and improvements
  • Colombia report: Moving GLAM institutions inside and outside Colombia
  • Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon Prachatice
  • France report: Wiki day at the Institut national d'histoire de l'art; Age of wiki at the Musée Saint-Raymond
  • India report: Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust content donation to Wikimedia
  • Italy report: Italian librarians in Milan
  • Macedonia report: WikiLeague: Edit-a-thon on German Literature
  • Netherlands report: WikiconNL, International Womens Day and working together with Amnesty, Field study Dutch Libraries and Wikimedia
  • Serbia report: Spring residences and a wiki competition
  • Sweden report: UNESCO; Working life museums; Swedish Performing Arts Agency shares historic music; Upload of glass plates photographs
  • UK report: Wiki-people and Wiki-museum-data
  • USA report: Women's History Month and The Met has two Wikimedians in the house
  • Wikidata report: Go Siobhan!
  • WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons; Bengali Wikisource case study
  • Calendar: April's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

RfC close on Talk:Ministry of TransportEdit

Thanks! No, really, I’m not coming to have a whinge – it’s exactly what I would have done.

I’m annoyed there’s no resolution though, given that there was an RFD I withdrew because of this confusion, and an RM at Talk:Department of Transport (Victoria, 2008–13) which attracted no discussion apart from me asking that it wait on the RfC. So if you have any suggestions on how to move forward (in a non-disruptive manner, obviously) I’d be grateful. Government instrumentalities are a niche topic, even on a website devoted to niche topics, so a lack of interest is always going to be an issue, but it’d be nice to find a productive resolution. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Close on Ilhan Omar RFCEdit

Regarding your close here, I have some issues that I'm wondering if you could address:

  1. I recognize consensus isn't a vote, but by my (very rough) count, I think there was a slight majority (20 vs 16) favoring exclude outright, and one late include vote has since been blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior devoted to this topic area. At a minimum, I think 20 editors (many of whom are fairly experienced) should get a more detailed explanation for why they're views aren't valid here (see point 2)
  2. I can't speak for other editors who cited WP:RECENTISM in their !votes, but I was never under the impression that it prohibited us from mentioning things that happened recently. I do believe it urges caution when we're trying to determine WP:DUE weight from a developing story, and it suggests that simply counting news stories may not be the best approach to deciding what belongs in the lead of an article. Political gaffes are particularly prone to generate lots of short-lived press coverage that looks wildly overblown in hindsight. I'm sure it's not your intent, but it sort of seems like a straw man argument to say "recentism doesnt prohibit recent stuff" when no one appears to have actually claimed that it did.
  3. It might be helpful if you offered a recommendation of some kind of way forward for determining an appropriate wording. I'm concerned that your close is going to be taken as an invitation for editors to start revert-warring over adding some kind of wording to the lead.

I appreciate that this RFC is probably a pain to read and you're inevitably going to make someone unhappy with your close, so thanks for taking a look. Nblund talk 20:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I'm not sure what I can add to what I already wrote to be honest. It isn't a vote, and the entire discussion was about whether mention was due or undue - based on the consensus of the opinions expressed some mention is due, but there was no consensus for a specific wording or for how extensive a mention is due. Comments favouring exclusion were more numerous, but on balance those opinions were weaker, and I addressed this with my comments regarding recentism and the ten year view. I don't have an opinion regarding what would be appropriate (if I did have such an opinion I would have been contributing to the discussion not closing it). As for how to proceed in determining an appropriate wording - propose something on the talk page and discuss it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
By "appropriate" I'm not asking you to suggest a new wording, I'm asking you to make a recommendation for how editors should reach consensus on a wording e.g. "editors should start a new RFC" or something along those lines. I see this frequently in closes that leave a lot undetermined, and it probably will have more authority coming from an uninvolved admin.
You said that WP:RECENTISM "does not prohibit coverage of recent events", but I don't see where anyone claimed that it did. In fact, I don't think anyone really suggested that we should exclude coverage at all, they just said it wasn't warranted for the lead. You also find a consensus that this is a significant element of her bio, which is not something I was even aware was part of the RfC. Nblund talk 21:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The only question in the RfC was whether it should be in the lead or not, so when people talked about including or including that was what they were referring to, not coverage at all in the article (indeed I'm not aware of anyone suggesting there should be none). This being a significant event of her career to date was a point brought up as a reason for inclusion in the lead by several of those arguing for that point of view, and was not significantly countered by those arguing for exclusion from the lead. The way forward is not for me or anyone else to dictate, but RfCs work best with clear questions that can be answered in a yes/no, option 1/option 2/option 3 style so if a formal RfC is needed (and it may not be) it would be best to have specific options for consideration before that point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting there should be none - I agree, which is why I think it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone was under the mistaken impression that WP:RECENTISM prohibits coverage of recent events. That would be a clear misreading of the essay. I think several editors addressed the point that "significance" was not determined by article-counting alone and that many sources questioned whether the level of outrage was proportional. This seems like no consensus to me, but at a minimum, it seems like the close should accurately reflect what people were arguing and why it isn't valid. I don't know if a formal challenge is necessary in order to modify a close, but it would allay my concerns if you would reconsider or at least expand your explanation for the close. Nblund talk 23:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but disagree. It doesn't matter whether the outrage was proportional to the comments (it is not our job to determine that). What mattered for this discussion is whether the significance (as judged by reliable sources) warrants a mention in the lead - my reading of the comments in the discussion was that the answer is yes for the reasons I gave in the closing statement. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I'm not saying we need to judge the proportionality, I'm saying that reliable sources themselves questioned the significance of the event - and we need to consider the contents of the coverage rather than just the scale. If we went by counting headlines we might think Hillary's wardrobe was a "significant" issue in 2016, but the stories themselves were all about the insignificance of the issue. In any case, I appreciate your response. I'm going to ask around and see whether other participants think its worth asking for a second opinion here. Nblund talk 19:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Heads up, I put in a request for a review of the RfC closure here. Nblund talk 13:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: You are creating the appearance of battleground behavior on this article. Please eliminate that appearance, please avoid forum shopping and repeated challenges in an attempt to "win" the disagreement. If you don't take my advice, there is a risk some administrator will ban you from further editing of the article. Please be patient. Respect that other editors might have views that differ from yours. Jehochman Talk 15:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levelsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

About your portal idea proposalEdit

On April 4th at WP:ANI you put in a proposal. I am a little stuck on which side to be on so can you give a few more details? Cheers! --StarlightStratosphere (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@StarlightStratosphere: assuming you mean "Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals" then, not really without knowing what sort of thing you feel you need more information about and that proposal is all-but certain to be rejected anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Very true that it will be rejected. I hadn't checked the votes again before coming to you. Thanks anyway! StarlightStratosphere (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan OmarEdit

Thank you for your very sensible discussion closure at Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Anti-semitism_accusations_be_included_in_the_lede? and not giving too much credence to assertions that WP:RECENTISM precludes WP articles from acknowledging the significance of recent events. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Globalise tag for Electrical muscle stimulationEdit

I see you added a globalise tag for Electrical muscle stimulation. I used to police that page and make incremental improvements when somebody made suggestions, but now I tend to miss Wikipedia-change emails, because of the volume of emails. Regardless, several years ago I had started adding the regulatory situation in other countries, because somebody had made your exact same remark; see for instance Use in Europe. I have no idea when and why somebody took that section out. Perhaps we could copy and paste, and I could add another sentence about regulatory situation in Canada, which I've found out in the meantime.--Gciriani (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly removed for being unsourced (some medical editors will simply remove all unsourced material, regardless of any other considerations, rather than just potentially harmful stuff), but if you can source the Europe and Canada situations then please add them (back). Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminshipEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

2 HeartsEdit

Hi, you closed the Rfc section for 2 Hearts (2007 song), but you forgot to move the page. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tbhotch: Whoops. I've now moved the page, thanks for the note. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

One question: why you moved article to name of "Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)" against consensus? This is clear: name of "Two Hearts (Kish Mauve song)" is supported by only one user, few users voted against this name. I understand that you tried to end the RfC, but not all issues were discussed until the end and you introduced lawlessness. Subtropical-man ( | en-2) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: As I stated in the RfC closure, consensus is not about counting votes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to reconsiderEdit

Your close of the CFD 'Establishments in New York City by year'? A majority of editors supported deletion and the creator of all these categories(and one of just two editors who opposed deletion.) threw in the towel on it[2]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agre with William.
That was a v surprising close. 5 editors + nominator supported merge; only 2 opposed. That's 6:2, which is not "no consensus" territory.
I also object strong to Thryduulf using the close to misrepresent my complaint about the malformed nomination. I raised the matter in an entirely civil way[3]. When Koavf replied, I responded with civility[4].
Koavf then replied by ignoring substance, and making a personal attack[5] BHG will BHG. Only then after two attempts to raise the issue neutrally, when I pointed out that it was laziness.[6] It is part of a much wider problem going back years of Koavf repeatedly failing to make coherent CFD nominations.
Please revise your substantive decision, and remove the under-researched personal criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
PS I have re-read your close, I note that you do not suggest or imply that the oppose votes were better founded in policy. Given that lack of a policy distinction, your discarding of a 75% majority for merge amounts to a supervote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have re-read the discussion and I stand by my close - it was not a vote so I have to consider the substance of the comments not just the number, and the arguments in favour of splitting in some cases were stronger than those favouring deletion for the reasons I detailed: they were principally about a slippery slope, which I found to be fully refuted. There was not a consensus in favour of merge/delete but neither was there a consensus in favour of keeping the categories (in part because of the number of votes). If you believe that any editor has a history of making poor CfD nominations then you should address that in the proper channels in a civil way - not by repeatedly calling them lazy in a single CfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

    • FYI I have started a DRV[7]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf, per WP:NHC, it is not the closer's role to evaluate which arguments they believe to be stronger. The closer's role is narrower than that: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue".
That section closes wit the words "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument." You clearly did not follow that policy.
Your evaluation here is not based on that weighing against policy, but on a personal evaluation of which arguments you personally found stronger or more persuasive ... and that amounts to a personal supervote. So it will take it to DRV.
As to Koavf, I have repeatedly raised with him the problems caused by his lazy creation of malformed CFD nominations. As noted above, I raised the problem in this case only as a direct commentary on the deficiencies of this nomination. I note even though you agree with the complaint that the nomination was malformed, your commentary in the close makes no mention of the fact that Koavf's second denial of a problem with the nomination included a personal attack on me, as an attempt to divert discussion away from the substantive issue of procedure. That omission wildly distorts your summary of events. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is already at DRV, I have expressed my opinion there and I have no further interest in discussing the poor conduct of any party in that discussion further. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circularEdit

 
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)Edit

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

  Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Your Consensus On Historical Rankings of Presidents of the United StatesEdit

My apologies for bothering you, but I need to ask you about the recent decision on the Rfc over the inclusion of the aggregate on the Historical Rankings of Presidents of the United States. How was a consensus reached? I see three users stating they favor keeping the aggregate, three saying they wish for it to be excluded, one user declaring neutrality, and three comments. That doesn’t seem conclusive at all. It appears that no consensus for or against the aggregate was reached at all.

I’d also like to ask if there might be an way to let users know when such important decisions are being made? I think that at the very least users who have the article added to the watchlist should be alerted when such important discussions are taking place. Since I never received such a message, I wasn’t even aware that the issue was being discussed. Had I been informed, I would have happily expressed my opinion on the matter. I’ve done a lot of work in that article, am a part of the wiki project that includes this article (WikiProject United States), and I even earned a barnstar for my diligence. I think I speak for a number of other users when I say that we should have been informed of such an important discussion on the article. I think the results would have been far less inconclusive had those who had the article on their watchlist were informed. This isn’t the first time this has happened, either. I think that an automated message sent to users who have the article on their watchlist would help get conclusive results on Rfcs in the future and allow everyone who wants their voice to be heard a chance to comment on issues relating to articles they worked diligently on. Is there any way this can be implemented in the future? Is there anyone in particular I need to propose the idea to, or will this suffice since you are an administrator?

Finally, I’d like to ask if there is a certain period of time before I can create a Rfc of my own or dispute the results. Despite the fact that I’ve been a user on this site for years, I’ve never done this before, and I’ve never seen an Rfc where the results were this uncertain. I think the results of this Rfc were far from conclusive and the matter warrants further discussion.

Again, I apologize if this is a bother, and I hope it doesn’t sound like I doubt your abilities as an administrator. I meant no offense, and I don’t want to cause any conflict or insult you. I simply wish to address the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus on this page. If my comment seems overly critical or insulting to you, I beg your forgiveness. I have been told that I often come across as insulting and judgmental when I don’t intend to be. Thank you for taking the time to read my lengthy comment and I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter. Anasaitis (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, no offence or anything similar was taken. You raise several points about the discussion at Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Request for comment: Aggregation of rankings that I'll deal with individually.
Regarding being aware of the discussion, this was a formal Request for comment and so would have been visible to everyone who watches the article, everyone who follows or browses the lists at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, at least some people who subscribe to the relevant portion(s) of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service and those who follow the Article alerts at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents/Article alerts. Additionally it was listed for about a week at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure after it had been open for about 5 weeks (opened 25 February, requested to be closed 6 April, closed 13 April). Short of a listing at WP:CENT (which would not be appropriate for a small-scale discussion such as this one) there isn't really much else that can reasonably be done to publicise the discussion.
Consensus is not determined by counting bolded !votes, but by assessing the strength of the arguments made in the discussion. As mentioned in the closing summary, I found the arguments against inclusion were stronger than the ones favouring it, principally that an aggregate calculated by Wikipedians would violate the WP:SYNTH policy. Reading the discussion again I stand by my closure and note that the arguments that different methods can give significantly different results and accounting for the different rankings in different historical contexts (e.g. re Andrew Johnson, who ranks between 31 and 42 in the four methods demonstrated) and thus any choice of which polls to include and which method to use would require significant original judgement fully refute the "just math" arguments.
If you wish to challenge the result of a discussion, the first step is to raise the matter on the talk page of the closer (e.g. as you've done here) asking them to reconsider. If (as I'm doing) they decline to do so and you still think the close was not an accurate reflection of the discussion, you can request a review at WP:AN - see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures.
If you don't want to challenge the closure, but bring up the matter again for discussion to see if consensus has changed, you can and there is no formal time limit, but the general recommendation is to wait at least six months to a year unless (a) there is significant new information that wasn't available to be considered; (b) there are new arguments that are significantly different to those considered last time; and/or (c) the 'facts on the ground' have materially changed since the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2019Edit





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

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

Suggest cotEdit

Please consider collapsing the closed section here. People may be following the notification link from the policy VP and presuming that all of it is closed, when actually their comments would be welcome further down. Thanks -- (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the closure on "List of music considered the worst"Edit

Personally, I don't agree with the closure. There were some valid arguments about the not inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's, but now you've closed it, and the album remains on the list. If you think the article is neutral, then you are mistaken.

There's one particular editor that's not letting others write anything positive about the album in the article, contradicting WP:NPOV. His reason? The article is only about negative things. I suggest you read this to know what's up.

Finally, the sole inclusion of the album is why everybody thinks Wikipedia's unreliable. Apply some common sense, the album shouldn't be there. Every time we try to make new inclusion criteria, the particular editor jumps in and says "I don't agree" and stops from anyone editing the article further. You can see his history yourself. A sane discussion can not be carried this way. Every time we cite WP:NPOV or WP:BIAS, they refer to it as a "random alphabet soup", and "linking those aren't gonna change anything". I'm not adding nonsense things to other articles. I'm following the guidelines, to make Wikipedia a better place. Disrespecting the rules and the five pillas, is the opposite. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There were indeed some valid arguments against the inclusion of Sgt. Pepper on the list, but equally there were some valid arguments for its inclusion. Neither set of arguments were stronger and there is no clear inclusion criteria that either support or oppose either position so the discussion reached no consensus. I hold no opinion on whether the article is or is not neutral, nor about the behaviour of any editors anywhere other than the specific discussion as none of that is relevant to that RfC. I read the NPOV noticeboard discussion before I closed the RfC but there was nothing there that was relevant to the singular question being asked. The no consensus closure does not mean the album must or must not appear on the article, simply that there is no consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Freddie StarrEdit

 On 13 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Freddie Starr, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 23:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis linesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Novel ideaEdit

Thank you for your input at the ARCA request, Thrydulf. How would I include the trigger you suggested in my notice at the top of my user page? Atsme Talk 📧 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • That I'm afraid I don't know. The best place to ask is probably WP:EFN as the folk there will know what triggers the edit filter and so what you need to do to match it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

InterCity 125Edit

Did you ride on one the last HSTs out of Paddington the other day? End of an era, those things were a mainstay of my youth.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Nope, unfortunately I was busy all day. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ResponseEdit

Erm, i dont agree with that at all. As you'll find on the history of cannock railway station some other administrators have acted in the same way. Secondly, you speak of my "behaviour". I am adding relevant information about the station which is in line with articles about other stations. If you look at Uttoxeter railway station, you will see it too has the walking distance. Same with Llandudno. As for service times, I suggest you look at Blakedown railway station. This tells you of the Chiltern service which starts at 8:13. None of the information I have included is strictly new to the article. All i have essentially done is update the page and these admins need to get their heads out their arses and realise this.

I can see why so many people are bullied out of wikipedia when they first join. Utterly disgraceful behavior from the lot of you. T.taylor1997 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC) T.taylor1997 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration requestEdit

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Inclusion of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on List of music considered the worst 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, ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 04:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Thryduulf".