User talk:Thryduulf/archive7

I'm glad that the consensus appeared to be forming that the speedy deletions were without merit, but I fear that an early close takes away from the legitimacy of the result and leaves the door open in the future. Can I request we let the discussion run its course as the nom? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he did the right thing, the deletion review had run its course, all articles were undeleted and "This page is about articles, not about people. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators." Might be time for the Admin noticeboard as I'd love to get the interpretation of other admins and long-time editors on this topic. --Canley 14:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have speedy closed it, but I won't ask Thryduulf to re-open: it is really up to the deleter whether to object, or those passionately sharing his view of G11. However, when a DRV is closed as restore, listings at AfD should be automatic, and Thryduulf should do them; I know it's a pain (esoteric programing...grumble), but it helps get the issues resolved. I wouldn't use the grey template, either; just put it in recently concluded -- if you need to reopen, it is still easy to revert. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy closed it as, with the exception of Improv and one other person (the first to comment), the consensus about the articles was unanimous. The discussion had moved on to Improv's actions. The administrators noticeboard or an RfC are the place for that sort of discussion not DRV.

I used the template as I felt to put it into the recently closed could give the impression of trying to brush it under the carpet and hiding reasoning. I felt that the full, signed, explanation of my speedy closing would also give a better impression than the anonymous short summary in the recently closed section would do. I wont object to reopening it if others want, nor will I object to others reopening it if they feel it apropriate.

I'll start putting the articles up for AfD now. From the deletion summaries, the images were deleted only for being unused following the article deletions, so I don't feel IfD is apropriate. Thryduulf 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the use of the template, I suppose; I rarely use it because I almost never speedy-close any substantial debate. While "personalizing" deletion issues is always bad, DRV is a good place to discuss differences of CSD interpretation, so criticism of Improv wasn't altogether inappropriate. As I said, though, reopening is really left to the wishes of the debate's minority, in this case, the deleter and his supporter. If they feel the DRV discussion is useful, or might turn in their favor, let it run; otherwise, meh...

It is for this reason, by the way, that I almost never speedy close the near-frivilous DRV requests we get from "clueless newbies" (unless the request makes no sense whatsoever.) The newbie will almost always harbor bitter feelings if he is "rushed out the door" -- no matter how much of a landslide the thing is, I give it five days, so that he will at least feel he was treated fairly. I make this observation since you're picking up DRVs more often. Also, feel like having a gander at October 1? :) As a participant, I can't close that one. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the ones I have been closing before 5 days this is the first where there hasn't been a couple of days of no comments before closing. This is also the reason I've not touched October 1 yet - I was debating closing it as I though it was pretty much settled, then when I clicked to edit the page I spotted you'd made a comment! Even when the discussion does stop its not going to be an easy one - and "no consensus" wouldn't really help much on this occasion! Thryduulf 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, DRVs never close as "no consensus". A "tie" results in a relist; if you closed October 1 now, by my count, it would be a "tie", unless you discount someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to remove the discussion of Seventh Party System? I thought one purpose of the daily pages was to become the archives once they were no longer transcluded. Septentrionalis 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, one should NEVER close a discussion that results in a delete early -- I'll reopen. Xoloz 15:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. To explain further, direct deletions from DRV (rather than relistings) require an 80% consensus (approx.); thus one should NEVER "snowball" them, because one dissenter is sometimes enough to result in a need to relist, rather than delete. Plus, in this case, the keep closer hadn't had the chance to comment; to close the DRV early is an insult to him, really. The closer is entitled to respect. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Looking at that again I was premature, I appologise. I'll bear this in mind for the future. Thryduulf 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Believe me, I am happy for the help at DRV! I'm starting to see Endorse Deletions in my sleep. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already had an AFD after it was restored, so I wouldn't think it needs another one (up to you of course). Cheers Yomangani^talk 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Uncle G has already closed it. I was just going through nominating all the ones that were restored per procedure (take a look at my contribs to see how much effort this was!). I spotted the existing afd and I did look at the dates but for some reason I read them as 2005(!) and based on this I set up the 2nd nomination. Had I read them correctly then obviously I would just have let it lie. Sorry for that. Thryduulf 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - the speed you managed to get all those in the log takes the biscuit (boom boom) - I wouldn't expect you to do an in-depth analysis on each one. Uncle G closed it staight off anyway. Yomangani^talk 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have revised your change to the above a little, to avoid anyone saying that the UK is not a nation (which someone is sure to do otherwise). Your point about it being the only land frontier possessed by Ireland or the UK is correct but as comprise islands that's self evident. Thanks for the other corrections, though bigpad 10:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was just typing in 'Neil Morrissey' myself in the word association game and got an edit conflict...turns out great minds think alike! Phileas 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk, FloNight 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nominated Olchfa footbridge for deletion at WP:AFD. The nom is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olchfa footbridge (second nomination). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for adding more than one word on the word assocation game. I'm very new to Wikipedia and I promise to abide by the rules next time in order for everyone to enjoy the game :). Thanks again! +WiiAlbanyGirl 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think South Western is SW trains, or will it be a seperate company? Simply south 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I thought it was one word to each possible combination, not one at a time for the grid. Thanks for setting me straight. Cheers Natgoo 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I've been doing this for less than a month myself and do consider myself an addict as well. I'm sure that I check the page at least 15 times per day. --Irish Hog 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my recent post in Template talk:Infobox UK station --ArmadilloFromHell 04:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if you could give a yea or nay to my idea for updating the {{British TOCs}} template, which can be found here. Ta muchly Hammersfan 19/11/06, 19.20 GMT

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion on this, I have added my (probably far too long) comments. Hyperman 42 00:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - just noticed your edits in changing the JPEG diagrams of CityRail stations to SVGs. I use Firefox, and the change has made all the boxes exceedingly large, so much so that it makes the article look bad. I'm tempted to delete them all now. Is there any way you can retain the former size, but maintain the good quality of the SVG images? JROBBO 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue to change over the diagrams, can you at least resize them when you change the diagram format? I don't want to have to go after what you do and change them all, although I'm happy to do the ones you have done so far. JROBBO 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you going overboard by being on here at 3:30am?

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto^talk 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some photos that need taking in your location at Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service! --Gphoto^talk 17:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

The community is encouraged to continue working to achieve an acceptable formulation of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, or an alternative, which addresses problems presented by disruptive users, while avoiding the creation of a hostile atmosphere for children who are editing in good faith. Users who disrupt Wikipedia by posing as children, projecting a provocative persona, and disclosing personal information may be banned on a case by case basis. Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

For the Arbitration committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. Thank you for your message, but the thing is that "user..." is a commonly used jargon when blocking users with offensive usernames (in this case, an in-joke on the IRC admins channel regarding User:Coredesat), and it is explained in the message that a blockee gets to notify that they are blocked

If the reason given is "username", "user...", "contact an administrator for verification purposes", or something similar, then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. To request a change in username and be unblocked, please follow these instructions. Alternatively, create a new account with a more appropriate name.

Cheers, have a good day!

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the #wikipedia-en-admins channel, after a discussion of what name a disgruntled vandal would use to impersonate User:Coredesat, we came up with the name of Cordlesstwat. So, one of the admins in the channel, created the user, and I while monitoring the new user log noticed it and immediately blocked (without autoblock checked of course). This example in question is a wrong one to take (since nobody will notice it save the admin who created the account), though I am inclined to agree that we should be making an effort to use more descritptive block summaries in cases where the user may be confused as to what he has done wrong (shared IPs, policy infringements like 3RR), and not in cases of username blockages, where the person knows full well that they have deliberately chosen an offensive username. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you; I don't frequent IRC much myself. To tell you the truth, I'm trying to stay away from any sort of controversy here, as I have throughout my wikilife of 1.5 years, and I've pretty much succeeded in maintaining a low profile. No one knows there's an admin by the name of Shreshth91, and I prefer it that way. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me clear it up further. I created the user after the discussion. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you reverted a change made to the UK station infobox (removing the years). While I agree in theory, it does now mean that stations where both figures for both financial years are given as a comparison look a little... odd, with them having the same title. See Ardrossan South Beach railway station for an example. --Dreamer84 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok would this be better idea for that article? put a paragrah about it on first group plc, and have first bristol redirected to frist group plc. and in transport for bristol (what ever its called) have a link to a new article called bus services in bristol? Mark999 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have first bristol as a redirect to first group. and have a little line about it on there.
then copy and paste the current frist bristol in to Transport in bristol (very edited) and add more about other services in bristol.
But if you want i could do it tomorrow. and i would move the service info to wikitravel. and add relevent stuff to both articles

edit 21:37 could i have your email because i have another question but its very long and i dont have the time until the morning

mark 999 at 21:35

can i edit first bristol and do the changes you said tomorrow because i will have 5 hours to work on it. mark999 21:48

last week i got an email from first saying that they are building a plaform 3 now. but that prob means clearing the space for it, is it important enought for it to be added?

mark999 22:38

In response to your question, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#Proposed_change_to_all_featured_lists and all subsequent comments save the last section on that page. Basically, Wikipedia:Featured content is set up to display a randomly selected featured list each time the page is refreshed. The edits made to the London underground list and others involved formatting to make this display work properly. --CBD 12:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion seems to have goe quiet, I've added a suggested way forward. Merry Christmas! Hyperman 42 13:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't image that I didn't notice this. I think it showed real class to give me a tip of the hat when we were involved in a heated dispute on a separate matter. Herostratus 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to notify the baseball projects about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball 1876. I should have done that... BTW, do you know why the baseball projects are divided into WP:WPBB and WP:WPBBP? It would seem like the two are too related to be separate and most discussions in one seem just as related to the other. Maybe a project merge is in order? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Jimbo got his days of the week confused. This is now happening TUESDAY 9th, same place. You may care to sign up again or not - David Gerard 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i do this, do you think it is okay if i just copy say the London one to a new page and just try guesswork at creating a few alterations or do i need to start from scratch? Do i register it anywhere? Simply south 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to create one for the SPT area in Glasgow. Simply south 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should i inform them it is under construction? Simply south 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you perhaps got a direct answer to your questions at [1], but in case not -- and as it's been about 7 weeks (I've only just seen them) -- this is just to let you know I've posted some answers there. -- Picapica 18:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question, that I thought I'd put to a few people who have taken an interest in the {{British TOCs}} template in the past, regarding the status of Island Line. We all know that it was amalgamated with South West Trains as the new South Western franchise, but has it actually stopped running? To the best of my knowledge, the service on the Isle of Wight is still operated as Island Line, and has not and will not (in the foreseeable future anyway) be rebranded as South Western Trains. Not to mention that there has been no alteration to the existing SWT article to include Island Line. The question is therefore, given that other "services" are included as train operators on the template (yes, at my insistence I'll admit), shouldn't Island Line be put back? Hammersfan, 07/02/07, 18.25 GMT.

What should be done now with the franchise article? Please reply on Talk:South Western (rail franchise). Simply south 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is listed at Wikipedia:Photo_Matching_Service#Somerset. Would you please consider my Link-boy article photo at the photo matching service. Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this image Image:Basford Hall sidings - 47077.jpg I believe shows a class 56 locomotive, I have made appropriate edits but thought it polite to inform you, you may with to change the file name Oxyman42

I will tell you why Doris Angleton is notable: The death case made a CBS news report http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/10/48hours/main323924.shtml , a Texas Monthly report http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2001-09-01/feature5.php , and various other reports due to questions about possible involvement of Doris' husband in her murder. WhisperToMe 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you posted on an AFD of some non-notable murder victim and evaluated the people cited. Doris was cited in the debate. WhisperToMe 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott McKeown WhisperToMe 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be extremely grateful if you could take a look at the Class 378 page and leave your opinion. It has been listed as an AfD on the basis that I have not provided evidence confirming the Class number. I have done this now, but those who are promoting its deletion are not prepared to accept the sources I have given. Given your attempts to provide civility during the whole {{British TOCs}} incident, I respect your opinion and would appreciate you contributing to the debate on this particular issue. Thanks Hammersfan 11/03/07, 13.10 GMT

Don't just give up on WA! Would you support a mediation request, as per the discussion at the talk page? --Perimosocordiae 18:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thryduulf. I am hoping that you, as an Admin both here and on the Commons, are the person who can help me. I have recently undertake the task of re-writing the article on anatomical terms of location. It's turning out to be a rather larger proect than I expected, but I will eventually see it through. To the point: to complete this article I am desperately seeking a photographer that could supply me with photos of humans in the standard anatomical position. I have a rather longish list of what I am seeking in this regard, and would be most willing to discuss them with that person. I have already approached a couple of folks from the Commons list of photographers, but have only heard back (tersely) from one. I was hoping that your combination of photographic skills and naturist proclivities (no, I'm not wearing anything at the moment, either) might lead me to someone willing to provide the photos I need. Curiously, non-nudist photographers seem to be frightened away from by request - even though I'm not looking for anything even remotely erotic. Any suggestions/leads/other would be appreciated. Thanks, and you can reach me via my talk page. Esseh 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Thryduulf. Thanks for the quick reply. I was thinking of doing that, but was hoping a Wiki-photographer and you might be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks anyway. Esseh 12:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often can someone play Word Association? --Smokizzy 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer. By the way, I completely understand the second part of your answer. ;) --Smokizzy 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was very funny, sort of a polite reminder of balancing work and play. (If you don't understand this answer either, because of my rambling, all you need to know is that I'm in a good mood today). --Smokizzy 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it got speedied into oblivion for your efforts. Oh well. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just getting in touch because you expressed an interest in the meetup here. Some people have expressed a view that they would be able to make it were the date moved from Fri 8 June to Sat 9 June. Obviously its now getting pretty close, so I thought a quick poll would be the best the way to find out the better day. If you're still interested, it would be great if you could say whether you can make either or both days here. Thanks, WjBscribe 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a catchy title! I apologise for its length. I don't think that I've written to you, before, Thryduulf, but I need your help. I removed non-notable and copyrighted material from the article, Puff the Magic Dragon (that hideous 'SEA version.') There is only one link to the song beyond Wikipedia mirrors, and even on that, it says Copyright © 2003-2007 by Jno Pauraig. All rights reserved. Now, when people are going crazy about free use, isn't it taking it up a notch by adding copyrighted , non-notable material (what a combination!) So I removed it. Now, the person who added it is not only making ad hominem attacks on me, on my user talk page, but is also claiming that 'G-d is on his side,' basically, and that I'm wrong for upholding Wikipedia policy and that he'll get the admins against me... could you please support my removing it again? I really need back-up in this case.

Best wishes,

--It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I restored "It's-is-not-a-genitive's" edit of the southeast Asia version, I saw it as simply his personal preference (he was certainly adamant about his personal taste in lyrics), but I missed the copyright citation. I took a more careful look this morning and found it. While I am dubious of the copyright (anyone can claim a copyright on the Web), I have to respect it. The version I included is quite notable, actually. It was often sung by US troops on the ground in Vietnam. For them, the modified DC-3 gunship was a lifesaver, intervening to drive back guerillas and North Vietnamese troops who would otherwise have slaughtered outnumbered US troops in various remote firebases. The "Puff" or "Spooky" crews were much appreciated and this version of the song is much notable within military circles.

I've added a link to the website listed, which will satisfy Wiki policy.

14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Someone thinks this is too dull for the wiki and wants it deleted - go have a look and a say Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 18:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

I would just like to say Thank You for all of the excellent photos you have taken of rail travel. They are excellent quality and taken to a very professional standard. Your Tyne and Wear Metro photos are particularly useful as I use the metro almost daily but only travel on the same route over and over and it is nice to see more of it. Without your photos there would be alot of blanks on rail pages (or 25px blurry JPEGs). So Thank You!

::Manors:: 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Have you seen the proposal to create a Somerset wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals ?— Rod ^talk 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you put your name down as interested in a Birmingham meetup. Just letting you know, the date is now set as Saturday 20th October. We really need input on where, and what time we will meet, so comments would be much appreciated on the page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard#A Soliloquy in favour of Jimbo's beard

I have to say that that was awesome : )

However, several links have gone red, or no longer display what I think you intended (as I look through their history). I was going to update the links, but I think that it would be cooler if you did : )

Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials - go to WikiWednesday rather than split between Jimmy and Sue - David Gerard 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Refurbished_Waterloo_&_City_Line_train_in_Doncaster_Works.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Biography of Pope John Paul II, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biography of Pope John Paul II. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've decided to postpone the meetup pending a new date, as too many regulars / people who signed up have said that they will not likely make it. Please go over to the talk page and let's discuss a new date! Poeloq (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf.

London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 is now happening next Sunday lunchtime (April 13th 1pm) in Holborn ...and it looks much more likely to actually happen this time. Come along!

-- Harry Wood (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. List of London Underground stations was among the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be recognized as list of the day twice. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was one of the more annoying of the associations that we've had recently. I have to say, I did feel exceedingly proud of myself when I thought of it...which probably shows that I spend far too much time on WA. Phileas (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be at London's Transport Museum depot in Acton with another forum, 
and almost certainly a pub in Acton after that. I might make it here towards the
end of the evening, but don't expect me. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanna Bell me? I will have my mobile switched on, so I could tell you how many or how few turned up? Gordo (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does your mobile number still end 96 

Yes, it does but I have changed my plans. I will only be there for a short while, possibly just from 6pm to 7pm.... you could phone the pub of course! Gordo (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Madakkavil, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madakkavil (2nd nomination). Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been helping out this project briefly and i thought you might be interested in it actually. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset. Simply south (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name at Wikipedia:Photo_Matching_Service. I revised the pages at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Please consider adding your name to the top of the page at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Somerset and to any of the other subpages for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in England. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atention all trainwikiproject images taskforce members. I am off to Edinburgh tomorrow (8th April) and I am taking my digital camera if there are any pictures needed only from Edinburgh Waverley railway station then please contact me before 9pm tonight because after that time I am getting ready for the trip. Thanks: en:user:Britishrailclass43 My talk page can be accessed through the images taskforce list.- Thanks

I was wondering if you could possibly join the InterCity 250 taskforce in the trains: wikiproject. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks- Britishrailclass43 (talk · contribs)

Hi Thryduulf , an image originally nominated by you has gone up for delist at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Your comments would be welcome. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Tram interior. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're hoping to have regular meetups in London. The next one is on May 11th Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. Another Sunday lunch in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder... Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. Hope to see you tomorrow! -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw from past records that you attended london wiki-meetup no. 9; if you're interested in attending again we're planning meetup 12 at the moment. Ironholds 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email; a response would be much appreciated. Thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your earlier response: I have sent a further email, as I still require assistance - any you can give will be much appreciated. Knepflerle (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you don't mind that I've corrected a few of your "Middlesbrough" spellings in the Commons, in Sunderland-related railway stuff. I have a slight bee in my bonnet about the difference between Middlesbrough (ex-Yorkshire) and Middlesborough (Kentucky!) :) Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - thanks very much! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you previously voted on in an AfD has been re-nominated. You can see the discussion at This link. Cardydwen (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a disambiguation between Hydrox (cookie) and Hydrox (breathing gas). As I'd prefer not to edit your user pages without invitation, perhaps you may care to amend the Hydrox link on your watchlist subpage to avoid the dab? --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])[reply]

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Hi. In the rationale you provided for locking the Somaliland article in its current version, you stated on its talk page that "the recent edit history for this article is almost exclusively reversion of one editor by another." However, this is not entirely the case. What's we really going on in the Somaliland article is a series of sockpuppets and single purpose accounts continuously removing reliable sources such as this Somalia profile from the CIA World Factbook, and Somalia's Transitional Federal Government's official Charter simply because the latter two affirm the established fact that the Somaliland region is and has always been a part of Somalia. Please also note that I'm not the only editor that has reverted these POV edits; many other editors including several administrators have as well and for good reason (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Further, I don't see how any compromise can be reached when every single international organization and country recognizes Somaliland as simply a region in Somalia, just like the sources in the reverted version repeatedly asserted (including this UN paper) -- just how does one compromise on reality? All this to say that I can appreciate if you perhaps weren't privy to all the facts (including this WP:AN/I discussion from last month) when you chose to lock the page in its current POV version. But now that you are, kindly unlock the page so that I may restore the CIA and Somali government sources that the latest sockpuppet/single purpose account has replaced with his unsourced POV. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your trying to be diplomatic about this affair; however, I must reiterate that no compromise can be reached on this issue. To illustrate what I mean, imagine some member of Texas' secessionist Republic of Texas group continuously attempting to edit -- and via numerous sockpuppet/single purpose accounts -- the Texas page to show that Texas isn't, in fact, one of the fifty United States that the US government and every single international organization and country know it to be. Next, imagine an administrator arriving just after the latest absurd POV edit/reversion and, mistakenly thinking that an edit war was going on, freezing the page as it is, in that same blatantly untrue version. This is precisely the situation that we have on the Somaliland article. Please understand, no compromise can be reached on this issue because -- in the same way that Alaska is a part of the United States -- Somaliland is a part of Somalia. Every single country and international organization does and has always recognized it as such (e.g. 1, 2). It's not an independent "country" of its own like the Somaliland article currently and absurdly states, but the northwesternmost region of Somalia. What we have here is a case of an editor using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate on behalf of his Somaliland secessionist cause; Wikipedia cannot serve as a vehicle for this propaganda. I'm therefore asking you again to please consider unlocking the page so that I may restore the CIA and Somali government sources that the WP:SPA has yet again removed, as well as offer me the opportunity to remove the heeps of unreferenced untruths he has left in it (see my latest posts for more on the latter). Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not responding? I've very clearly explained above the situation. I wrote that no compromise can be reached on this issue because Xetra80 is a Somaliland secessionist; he literally believes the Somaliland region of Somalia is an independent country of its own, although every single country and international organization recognizes and has always recognized it as a part of Somalia (e.g. 1, 23, 4). Just see his latest post on the article's talk page for proof of this:

"Somaliland IS a break away state and unrecognised country."

Now that you are aware of where Xetra80 is really coming from and of all of the forgoing, why are you still keeping the page locked? Just what purpose does securing a blatantly untrue version of the article serve except to mislead the reading public? Is the CIA lying when it states that Somaliland is part of Somalia? The UN? Were the other editors and administrators that reverted those same POV edits before me (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) likewise mistaken? Please at least explain your logic because I'm honestly having trouble following it. Are you not in the least bit concerned that User:Xetra80 -- an account he created only a few days ago -- is using any means necessary including outright lying and creating sockpuppet accounts (such as his Igor akb80 account -- notice here too the "80" suffix; I'm guessing that's when he was born) to disseminate his Somaliland secessionist propaganda? Please respond. Middayexpress (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped by to let you know that User:Xetra80 has just been confirmed of abusively using multiple accounts, just like I've been saying all along. His account is now indefinitely blocked, as is his main sockpuppet account. Now that you are aware of this, kindly unlock the Somaliland article so that I may restore the sources he removed in his POV edits and other editors may edit the page. Middayexpress (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thryduulf. Just wondering, what's the connection between Kupe and the New York Giants? I can't think of one myself and I'd love to know what the connection might be (I remember hearing about Kupe when I was young, but I know next to nothing about the New York Giants). Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was, but I wasn't sure. Thanks for that! – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know this might be a bit outside your area of interest, but I was wondering whether you might be able to get a picture of The Royal National College for the Blind at Hereford (I believe the college's main building is is of historic interest). Let me know if you can do this. I'm trying to get the article up to GA stasus and one or two images would help to enhance it. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Paul Largo (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my message to moderator Tiptoety. who have blocked my username Xetra80 under allegations from Middayexpress that I am a sockpuppet. I am very upset being blocked without being allowed to explain why I moved from username Igor80 to Xetra80. Please read my letter to him and feel free to give your recommandation. I do no trust Middayexpress because he seems to have an personal political interest in defining Somaliland as an autonomous region part of TFG Somalia. when even wikipedia list of unrecognised nations , classifies Somaliland as an unrecognised de facto republic not a autonome region.

You may have no interest in the article itself I respect that. But please take a look at the historyline and see how Middayepxress is carefully guarding his version of Somaliland article 24 hours, he ' he claims in summarys to only revert small changes but literary changes back to his version everytime' There are people from Somaliland who everyday edit and refute his political claim towards Somaliland. We must have an end to this revert war. Now I have provided neutral sources from both UN , US State department , BBC , Reuters , AP , UNPO , Wikipedia itself. Somaliland is a de facto unrecognised republic , de jure part of Somalia which does not exist de facto itself ( ironic is it not ? )

Middayexpress sources are from Somalilands political opponents in first line TFG government itself and other antiSomaliland groups with links to TFG and various heavily biased southern somali websites.

Sincerely Xetra user Xetra8080 (talk)

You've uploaded File:The Heart of Wessex line.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be with this

Hi there, Thryduulf! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By Simply south not SS, sorry 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply south not SS, sorry 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to hear from you on this planning page. Sticky Parkin 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I read your comments on the Norfolk page and, as usual over disputes like this, came to check some of the chat pages of the posters. Imagine my surprise when I saw that you ACTUALLY KNOW! the Willy with wheels issue, I tried like hell to look at past logs to find out what it was all about due to it being a lot of points in the Wikiholic quiz (lol!)
Not only that but you were awarded a barnstar, needless to say I am in awe of your very presence and you are indeed in the annals of the Mystic and Mythical on Wiki !!

I wanted to ask if it was at all possible to set up a PayPal account for fees for joining Wiki UK Ltd ? I don't even think I have a cheque book and if I do I have no clue as to where it may be

Hope our paths cross again (and in a nice way lol)

cheers : Chaosdruid (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that the Manchester meetup is this Saturday. Hope to see you there! Majorly talk 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I notice you were interested in Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll attend :). Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of London Underground stations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Simply south (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]