User talk:Thryduulf/archive9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Thryduulf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You state that the MIT license is not compatible with the GFDL or cc-by-sa licenses that Wikipedia uses, yet you give no proof of this at all. How is a permissive licence not compatible? Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Hi Thryduulf. I appreciate for completing the survey two weeks ago. I would like to return your favor with a reward of an online gift card with no condition. Please leave your email address in the final version of survey of my project. In addition, you can get chance to win $50 worth of gift card. It takes only 10 minutes to complete the final version because it contains only 35 questions. If you have Wikipedia friends, please introduce this survey to them. Thank you so much. cooldenny (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re [1]: where did you get the gauge from? It should be included in the article if there's a RS. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no text on the page you linked me to, for some reason. Also, alas, I'm quite short of cash at the moment and conserving the money on my Oyster card for getting to the work I'm starting next week, so it probably wouldn't be the best idea. Maybe next time. Katharineamy (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. When I read your comment at the discussion thread, I thought you knew someone there. Sorry about that. Personally, for some things I try to contact individual editors. It doesn't always work though; I've been looking for a free picture of hamedori for the point of view pornography, but nobody I've contacted has one or can make one. Thanks though Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Reimerswaal (municipality), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/r/re/reimerswaal.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As it may be easy to miss and I consider a timely response important: see [2]. Hans Adler 17:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am still not happy with your response. [3] You have made a serious accusation. I have no problem with it provided it is true. Given that in this very case the same accusation has been made without any justification, and that I have found no evidence that the accusation is true, I am suspicious. I am not going to let this go before someone has provided evidence for your accusation or it has been retracted. The relevant policy is WP:NPA. Hans Adler 19:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
I've made a belated response to your proposal here. Do you still think a list-of-lists is worth trying? bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologize for the confusion on that conversation, when I saw the page Lother had made I assumed he had created a disambiguation page and not merely converted the redirect into one. So I put in a request for delete not realizing that the redirect was still there. I changed the request to better clarify the situation. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously taking the claims of the person hired by the company to write an article??? CTJF83 09:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Any plausible claim to importance or significance, no matter who makes it or whether it can be verified or not, means that an article is not subject to speedy deletion. "Importance" and "significance" are explicitly lower standards than notability. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. A declined speedy deletion does not prevent a prod or AfD nomination if you think it doesn't meet the required standards for a Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh, it was already A7'd once. CTJF83 09:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The version that was A7ed didn't assert any importance or significance, the version I declined did. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf, you removed the speedy tag at this article, which is nice, but you left it completely unreferenced. Please, note, it is a WP:BLP. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes this person notable? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if they are notable or not. However the article makes claims to importance (as I specifically said in the edit summary,"Appearing in notable shows is an assertion of importance") and thus it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Importance is explicitly a lower standard than notability, and just requires a credible assertion. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Thryduulf (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources as to their notability, lack to any claims of notability other than claims of extremely minor roles. Did you even read this autobiography? Body double and unnamed extra are not claims of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A7 does not require a claim of notability, just importance or significance - explicitly lower standards than notability. Equally it it does not require the claims to be verified, nor any others sources. All that it requires is that the claims are credible. Please reread the criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it - at Sarah's ANI you wanted to topic-ban her from Wales (et al), and asked at one point for another admin to sanction me - essentially for standing very strongly against you repeatedly pushing for unworkable sanctions against her, and (perhaps uncourteously) asking you to please step back. Now you are still on her talk page - quoting Aneurin Bevan, and saying how truth is subjective. Your agument (with the link) is surely just validating her beliefs re Wikipedia. I think things need to settle down don't they? You have given a lot of advice to her since the ANI, none of which has had the effect that was no-doubt intended imo. The whole ANI experience (for us all) needs to be moved on from now I feel.

I'm not going to personally get involved on Sarah's talk page again unless I have a really-good topic-related reason, but I am currently keeping an eye on it - as Sarah's frame of mind after by the end of the ANI was not great. I just don't want the time I spent wasted. Sarah has always been sceptical of admin, and it's a lot to ask of her to respect advice from someone who was so punitive at the ANI. At best it is obviously patronising (I don't think she's quite as young as you've surmised btw), and at worst it could be considered provocative (ie why this change of tack?), or simply ill-advised (did you notice that after your advice on reporting 'provocation' she did just that over a time-served editor who was ultimately rectifying mistakes?)

The admin job really should be just a mop and a bucket imo, and Sarah actually has the mentor role in John. One of the reasons I changed my mind about mentorship being of some value for Sarah was so an admin that she respected (or respected enough I should say) actually held the 'job in hand', so to speak. Given your earlier stance, I can't see any other reason for your continued advice other than to share the role - but I don't think it works like that.

Just my two cents. These are areas I edit in, and plan to work in - I just want things to settle down. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, thanks Matt. But I have no issue with Thryduulf philosophising on my page! It's such a big improvement from him wanting to burn me at the stake:) You will have noticed that I have a "Zero Tolerance" for commentators I find obnoxious - but Thrydu is OK. Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you were not watchlisting this! Of course you don't mind. No one will thank you if the shit hits the fan again and you've been eating them for breakfast though - so keep being Super-Nice Sarah I would suggest. I think I've done all I can for you now anyway - you've got your second chance (which for the moment has turned out better than you could have possibly imagined), and you are entirely in charge of it. It really is all up to you.

Can you self-revert that Snap edit btw - it's basically incorrect, and it's bothering me a little that the turn seems to be mine. It is a child's game after all. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks good job. Too quick for me. Dlohcierekim 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, and the same kudos to you for not blindly speedy deleting a page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I've listed Australian Dangerous Goods Code (ADG) Class 1: Explosives at AfD. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thryduulf. I'm just posting to let you know that List of London Underground stations – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards, —WFC— 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you please remove this part of the sentence in the article Child pornography?: "; as such, child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse."

It's an obvious lie, see Talk:Child_pornography#Pornography_.3D_abuse.3F.3F I can't do it because I don't have an account. --90.177.208.162 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. See the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:User simple-0. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Femininity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a straw poll here for a discussion that you previously expressed an opinion in. --Taivo (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I mention you in this ANI thread. Note that I am not accusing you of deliberately proxying for a blocked user, I am just surprised that an IP with that kind of block log and making that kind of edit request could find someone who would make the edit without asking more questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider your close of the Guffin bean redirect. The reasoning of the participants in the discussion was flawed. The claim that the list of names added in 2005 was mostly correct means that there were some that were incorrect. For example, haba beans are fava beans. This allows one to track the proliferation of the false names on the internet. The other claim, saying that now that Wikipedia has spread this false name it should be kept is a sickening paean to ignorance and benightedness, and more importantly is not supported by any WP:Policy. What is supported by policy is its deletion. Speciate (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only close based on the consensus of the discussion, and while there were claims that some of the redirects were from incorrect names the consensus seemed to be that most were unproven one way or the other, but that on the balance of probabilities it seems that this name is correct but rare. No other redirects were under discussion. The last comments were made 5 days before the closure in a discussion that had already been open over 3 weeks - rfd's normally only last 7 days total. There was thus ample time for you to have raised additional points. I thus stand by my closure.

As for a way forward, I suggest that discussion continues on an appropriate talk page to determine which, if any, of the redirects are actually incorrect. Those redirects can then be nominated for deletion (note that retargetting doesn't require deletion, nor discussion at RfD if is either non-controversial or supported by consensus at a relevant talk page) based on that evidence. Deleting a group of redirects because an unspecified subset of them might be incorrect is never going to get consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I retargeted the others. Only Guffin bean remains as completely unattested for Lima beans and has no other meaning. Speciate (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have said this during the discussion which came to the opposite consensus. I can't change my closure based on what one side says after the discussion is closed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You can reopen it. Here's the underlying truth; the injection of the list of names was clearly flawed. The name is unattested and is a mistake. The incompetence or bias of the nominator is not supposed to discredit the nomination. The original creator of the redirect has been active today, but declined to explain the redirect. Speciate (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There was plenty of time to present all the evidence during the very extended discussion. Take this to DRV if you want, but I'm not seeing any evidence that shows either the closure or the consensus was incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you really feel that my deletion here was inappropriate - "Additional information: It has been observed that this phenomenon is inconceivable by ginger kids" - then by all means, go ahead and restore the page.

Restoring a page (especially one like this) just to dot the i's and cross the t's on its writ of execution, however, would be process masturbation of the worst sort.

There is a difference between not biting the newcomers, and allowing the newcomers to jab you with sharp sticks in the head and neck area.

This fragment-of-article had a tiny bit of actual information (sewage tanks leak), and then went roaring off into thigh-slapping HI-LA-RI-TY, gaha gaha. The terminology used was intended to magnify that hilarity.

It was crap, pun most definitely intended. It was deliberately submitted as crap. Redirecting it to an existing article (does any such even exist?) would have been a crap decision.

Excising the crap content, building a new article from the single worthwhile datum, and then renaming it so as to avoid any connection to the original crap name would have been even worse.

In the words of Lu-Tze, the point of rules is so that you have to think before you break 'em. IAR exists for a reason. DS (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I endorse your suggestion at the MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Talk:Shigihara, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CHAPTCA (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvements are welcome. --Σ ^talk_contribs 17:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that the page equidistant was changed to a redirect to Wiktionary as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25#equidistant. This has been raised at Wikiproject Mathematics and we think it would be better to redirect to distance. (The word "distance" when used in mathematics has a range of meanings that go well beyond what's in Wiktionary.) What's the best way to proceed with this? Thanks, Jowa fan (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've commented in the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

	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)

Now that you have deleted Helen (actress), what tool can I use to search for occurrances of the same, so that I can replace the appropriate ones with Helen Jairag Richardson? I found a red link today, but regular search does not pick them up (or returns too many hits), and 'what links here' is not available on a missing page. BollyJeff || talk 13:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. OMG, there are so many! BollyJeff || talk 15:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Redirect Barnstar
		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)

You have relisted discussion about National Research University MAI, but you have closed similar discussion about Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University) with closing argumentation See comment at #National Research University MAI. Same two cents apply. You have made two different decissions on two similar closing argumentation. In addition link to "#National Research University MAI" part of discussion is poised in air. Have you made mistake? I suggset, both variants of decissions (closing or relisting) are possible, but both of them must be similar. Alex Spade (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem I've been inconsistent there. Despite much thinking I cannot recall why I chose different outcomes for essentially the same state of discussion. :I think the best course of action now will be to relist the discussion I closed with a note pointing to this discussion and a comment pointing to the new location of the referenced comment. Slightly alternatively I could avoid the need for the latter comment by moving the relisted discussion to today's page to keep the two together.

Until I decide which is better I'll not do either (but I will act today). If you (or anyone else reading this) has a preference or an alternative suggestion, please share it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, both discussion shoul be relisted on one page. But feel free to make your own more unified decision. Alex Spade (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion so all the redirects in both discussions are now listed on today's page (including the ones I deleted, which I've restored for the sake of simplicity as much as anything else). It was a little confusing doing all that, I think I've got everything where it should be with all the explanation in the right place, but if you spot anything wrong please feel free to either fix it yourself or let me know as you think appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Relisting seems fine to me. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your input is cordially invited at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_16#Sherrod_DeHippo

I speedied this redirect when I came across it on CSD because it appeared to be either an attack page or unencyclopedic, and so I chose to err on the side of caution. However, it was not my intention to abort the RFD discussion, since I would have yielded to the redirect being restored if the discussion closed that way. However another editor closed the discussion as a result of my speedying the article. If you think the discussion should continue, please let me know and I will re-open it. causa sui (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to poke my nose in but I was the editor who closed the discussion. Closing the discussion, in such circumstances, is standard practice in RfD because once the redirect has been deleted then there is no redirect to discuss. One way forward would be to temporarily undelete (though it is obviously an attack page of sorts it is a childish rather than an egregious attack) which would result in the close being reversed, but I don't think we should continue a discussion on a deleted page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the redirect should be restored, at least for the duration of the discussion. If a page is undergoing active discussion then it should not be speedy deleted unless it's a completely objective criterion (such as copyright violation, where it either is or isn't) or the discussion is recommending speedy deletion. Where there is a good faith suggestion to keep the article, then a speedy deletion is no longer uncontroversial and so no longer valid. Where there is an explicit statement that it is not speedily deletable (as here) then speedily deleting the page is really not acting in the best of faith. Yes, the redirect will almost certainly be deleted, but the point is that incorrect speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things to the project and so it is very important that they always be uncontroversial - if there is any doubt whether a criterion applies then it doesn't. Given that the speedy deletion had taken place, Bridgeplayer's closure was absolutely the correct thing to do. Once undeleted, the discussion should simply be reopened with an explanatory note. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually felt that the 3-5 hits argument did successfully prove his point, since those could have been found via bot, headbomb, or myself (i stumbled on that redirect while cleaning something else a couple weeks back so it does happen). Had there been 30-40 hits in a month or more then I would have considered that argument refuted and closed it differently, since bots and maintenance users could not have accounted for all of that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The rules do state that you must associate with the word above (that was the intent of that rule): "The words in the first columns and rows of each level must associate with the previous word as well as the level above ((2A 2D) must associate with (2A 2C) and (1A 1D))." If a word isn't there, how do you associate with it? 75.88.44.57 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I did a review of List_of_London_Underground_stations for WP:TFL. If you have time, maybe you could have a look at it and address the questions. Thanks. bamse (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Hi, I am not sure that the hatnote is the neatest way of doing it. There are, in fact 6 FIFA World Cups. Also Football World Cup redirects there and would have to be mentioned. I think the simplest way is an 'otheruses' tag and we can put all 6 cups on a disambiguation page. I'll add this comment to the RfD; Regards, Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated "Football world cup" separately to "Soccer world cup" (on the 31 August page, even though it is now 1 September, to keep them together). Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's OK; it's still 31 August across the pond! :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I speedied them both. _→AzaToth 11:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know that per your comments in this discussion, we already have a routebox at {{Cumbrian Coast Line RDT}}. I am not sure if you were aware of this when you made the comment to convert it to a routebox. Frietjes (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf,

I am trying to prepare List of London Underground stations to be featured on the main page. It has been recommended that the "Mainline opened" column be explained in the section intro, but I don't know what that column is for. Would you be willing to explain it in the introduction to that section?

Neelix (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you have a minute I wonder if you would close this RFD, please (the other regular admins have already taken part in the discussion)? Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; nice solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the close :) --Taelus (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Thryduulf! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 14, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yoghurt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Consider this a formal warning: you are being a WP:DICK. My request to an adult person did not in any way "suggest tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor".[4] I asked her to confirm, on her page via a single sentence response, what is a blatant truth, that she opposes the title. I can only thank you for your fantastic summation that what I asked is "in the hope of getting her involved in a large and potentially uncivil discussion",[5] since it illustrates very well why I consider this website a cesspool. For someone of your caliber to become an administrator after only six months of work in 2005, and proceed to consider that license hold the views you do and lord over people who disagree with you is a severe insult to the intelligence of the populations of wiki editors and readers alike. I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors. No one should have to put up with this, I certainly won't. cc: Sswonk talk, Sarah77 talk. Sswonk (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have responded at user talk:Sswonk. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)