== Nomination fo

Hello! I've noticed you've been closing some redirects for discussion discussions (appropriately) as a non-admin. When I ventured into this area a few months ago, some helpful admins passed on the advice that when closing an RfD, you should tag the talk page of the redirect with the {{Old RfD}} template to record that the discussion took place. I have tagged a few already that you have closed so I thought I would let you know. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: thanks for that. As you may see from WT:RFD I asked and Thryduulf replied, that if I could close so that it saved admins some trouble I would do so. I do think I know kinda how not to close something that I have had a hand in (hence some that I think are snowballing I have not closed), but technical advice like this is extremely welcome to me who has just lost his virginity with doing it. I'll continue to argue with you at RfD if that is OK with you, though: I find it a fascinating forum cos it's kind of the fags of all nations that almost anything can turn up there and I for one do appreciate your help and wisdom in doing so, even when I disagree with you. Si Trew (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and agree to disagree! RfD has been an enlightening experience, and is far more civil than articles for deletion. I get tired of arguing to delete non-notable biographies and corporate fan pages, and it's invariably a sock drawer. I should have also told you about {{nac}} as a shortcut for non-admin closes. I think the advice at WP:NAC requires strongly recommends its use. Ivanvector (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dieudonné Gnammankou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swahili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, you participated in a deletion discussion for several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa. All participants were in favor of deletion for several of them, but three were convoluted. The majority were in favor of deleting each one, but these three got one don't-delete each, and the whole discussion was difficult to assess; Bromley86 had a good description in calling it "this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area", and the two most helpful votes were split between deletes and don't-deletes. Since none of the redirects are outright harmful, I figured we'd get the best result if I just kept them and immediately relisted them; I've created new nominations for them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4, and your participation would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Serge Guinchard, you may be interested in discussing a rewrite proposal on the Talk Page. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I see that you closed the Rfd on Fictitous as "redirect to fiction" and carried out the result. I was going to suggest revisiting the close, since fictitious was suggested as a better target, but administrator EurekaLott has done it themselves, effectively objecting to your close per WP:NACD. To eliminate possible contention/confusion, should you consider rewriting your close? Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Hi Ivanvector, thanks for that. I thought it was uncontroversial close but presumably not. How would you suggest I rewrite it? Happy to do so if it clarifies the status quo. Si Trew (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think controversial necessarily, but apparently the admin saw a different consensus. Maybe no action is necessary, I'm not sure. Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I did see that more went for "fictitious" than "fiction". I changed the closing noters – a slip on my part when closing, to get the wrong target. Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Si, could you please look at the last three modifications of my draft (which I did after applying all your suggestions) and tell me if they are OK? (Maybe this got lost in the lengthy Redirection thread …) Thanks! Uli Zappe (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Module Draft:PageLinks, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Module:UserLinks.

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) 09:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gustav Wikkenhauser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frank Smith

Juan de la Cierva y Peñafiel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to University of Madrid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_10#Sun_Television_News_Channel - I'm afraid you're a bit confused. Sun Television News Channel has nothing at all to do with the British newspaper The Sun (United Kingdom) or Rupert Murdoch. Enza Levant (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Si. Personally, I really appreciate anyone who wants to help with closes at RfD, but recent discussion has sort of confirmed that NACs can't be performed if the closer can't carry through on the result (i.e., if the result is to delete). I'm happy to overlook that in obvious cases, but it's probably not something you want to make a habit out of. In particular, your two closes at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 10 were just three days into their listing. WP:DRV would undo those in an instant. I don't think the outcomes were unreasonable, and I deleted Celtic sea salt myself. As the nominator for Jianada, however, I didn't feel comfortable doing so there. You should probably either try tagging it with {{db-xfd}} or revert the close. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, looks like Tavix reverted it. Probably for the best. I think the Celtic sea salt decision can stand, though. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more request: please don't close discussions that you've participated in. You've done that several times recently, including a NAC on a discussion that you opened. It looks troublesome, even when it's done in good faith. The instructions at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure (specifically WP:BADNAC) are designed to avoid potential conflicts of interest. The withdrawn nominations are fine, but please take care in the future so that you can avoid the possibility of accusations. - Eureka Lott 14:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is guidance elsewhere (WP:RFC I think) stating that any editor can close a discussion if the outcome is obvious, and unless there is specific guidance at WP:NAC conflicting with that (^i.e. don't close if admin action is required, as BDD noted above) then I think it's fine for an involved editor to close. Rather, I think it's non-controversial. Any editor can re-open, anyway. I would point to there being no deadline, however we've recently seen that several RfD discussions fizzle and languish open for sometimes months, so maybe there should be a deadline for this process. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: @Eureka Lott: That is a reasonable request, but hard to fulfill. The editor who usually closes them, User:Thryduulf, has not been around much, and so I have been kinda closing them if they seemed to be WP:SNOWBALLing or whatever. Perhaps I went overboard but I am sure you realise I was WP:AGF. There's just not many other editors/admins around to do the tidying up. I don't like closing my own either, because I can see it looks rather prejudicial, but in the cases I did, I thought it was fairly clear what the result was going to be. I haven't closed anything controversial (I think); if so it can be reopened. While there is no deadline, the problem arises that Wikipedia is extremely popular for search engines and so on, so if we have it "wrong" then millions of people get it wrong, so I think there is sometimes a matter of urgency. Si Trew (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would avoid doing any NAC closures of discussions you've been involved in unless there is a problem of BLP or similar seriousness or the closure is significantly overdue, getting on for a week. While your closure of the Hitler's Aims discussion was the correct outcome, it was not a suitable one for you to close given you were involved, it was not overdue and had limited other participation. It's far better to close the ones you uncontroversially can first, leaving those you are involved with or are not suitable for NACs generally. This means there is less for others to do, making the task less daunting. If there is truly a backlog use the admin backlog template on the RfD page. If there are a small number outstanding you can't close, put up a request at WP:AN/RFC or ask an admin on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Thanks for the advice. I've never wanted to be an admin, just was doing what I thought was routine gnoming under WP:BOLD and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Si Trew (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You generally are doing good work (although NACs are not gnoming), but just be a little more cautious about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't particuarly like my talk page being used for controversial discussions either. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. My talk page is not the place to discuss policy decisions, which is why I frequently blank it. Si Trew (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bot that will do that for you. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Ivanvector (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Possibly the most eccentric thing ever posted on my talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Thank you. Surreal is actually what I do best, in the Wikipedian sense I mean, I just come up with really random nonsense that sometimes makes sense once it is put together. I am not that surreal, I can think very logically and laterally, but piecing things together at RfD you have to oh think 'out of the box' as the marketing people have it, and every once in a while it makes sense. Not often, though. Went to Szolnok and back today, wasn't meant to get back today, but cat was a bit ill. Lovely day there, though. The missus wouldn't let me steal any hotel towels but I got away with a couple of mugs as souvenirs. Hell of a plod from the station to the Tisza, though. and we couldn't quite find the hotel, but my general geography is if you come across an object as subtle as a fast flowing river, either avoid it or at least make sure it is flowing in your direction (train was quicker). I don't have GPS. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, here are some home truths for you, before you start taking the piss out of me. My wife and I live in one room. We have installed in it, a shower cubicle, inside WC, new electrics, we have decorated it, I have planted a new garden. We have done it all with our own hard work and bare hands and our own intelligence. I make sure my family is all right for money though I don't have much myself. I haven't had a proper holiday in ten years. We scrimp and save, I have never taken a penny off the state, I bung in taxes. I pull out three good meals a day for about two US dollars, and they would grace the cover of a cookery magazine, out of a little bachelor griller for which incidentally I supplied the stub article and the picture. I get on well with my neighbours, you probably didn't shift thirty kilos of shopping, a week's shopping, up a hill on your back this morning, with an hour's walk round trip: I did. And got it out of about ten dollars, and that includes fresh veg, milk, meat, eggs, and basically a week's rations for me the wife and the cat. The cat actually costs more to feed than we do. (Oh, see Rationing in the United Kingdom, to which I also significantly contributed). The cat is fed. The house is heated. All the bills are paid. All the lights work. It could could do with a spring clean, which is what I am doing. I've already done the kitchen but it is rather dusty.

So, before you start having a go at me, why not see, before you complain about the dirt on my glasses, make sure it's not the dirt on your own.

Rant over. Now get off my talk page, this discussion does not belong here. It belongs at WT:RFD to which I will willingly consent for it to be transferred. Si Trew (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Bobherry. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Bobherry that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You called me "very stupid" and threatened to punch one of my friends who is an admin. Watch it. I'm not removing it for now. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 03:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs are at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobherry&diff=654502358&oldid=654498144 Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 03:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, @Bobherry:, I thought it was totally the wrong forum to play practical jokes. I thought I was perfectly civil if harsh, it is not the right place to do it. When you list something at WP:RfD, I and many other regulars will start hunting for alternatives, discussing possibilities, and so on. If you bothered to look back you may notice that I found an untagged redirect for Samuel Clements and marked it. Just because it is April 1 does not entitle you to make the encyclopaedia worse and cause other volunteers needless work. I thought I made that plain. Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I shouldn't have but that's not a reason for you to want to punch an admin and call me very stupid. I replied on my talkpage. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 04:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Your comments on that page are beyond the pale, and over something so petty, so minor. Telling someone they're "[making] the encyclopaedia worse", calling them "VERY STUPID", condescendingly referring to them as "young girl", insulting their intelligence by suggesting they can't understand your language, labeling an innocent joke as vandalism, then turning around and attacking an admin who suggests you're being rude, suggesting that others aren't welcome to enter "your" area, and then outright saying you'd punch them in the face, and then turning around and saying "I thought I was perfectly civil" is absolutely unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination! Had you only said one of these things, not had a history of personal attacks, or seemed even a little apologetic for that behavior, I'd give you a warning and move on, but you're so brazen and unapologetic regarding your insulting conduct I have absolutely zero faith that it'd make a difference. Thus, you're blocked, this time for a week, and I'd strongly advise you to unilaterally retract your personal attacks and apologize to both users. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, it sends the wrong message to emphasise that the person Simon attacked was an admin, no? Is it less objectionable to threaten to punch non-admins in the face? ekips39 (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to emphasize that point whatsoever, and you're absolutely correct that it would be just as bad if he said that to any other user. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony seems to have gone awry. But look, I served my ban, and it is over. Let's try to make the encyclopaedia better (even if we have to spell it in the American way).... Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SimonTrew. You have new messages at Bobherry's talk page.
Message added 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your apology and not leaving wikipedia after being banned. Have a nice day and happy belated birthday! Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Belated Birthday! Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Saw your thank-you message on User talk:Iaritmioawp. He mediated & helped in my case in a very kind way also. How to send barnstars? O.K.: You klick the red heart icon on top of a Wikipedia page and get into a dialogue box, asking if you would like to give barnstars, kittens, fodd& drink thank you messages to another user. That's it. --Miraclexix (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclexix: Oh but I'm British. We don't tend to do that kind of thing, it would seem exaggerated. I realise we should probably be more open, but it takes time to learn that kind of thing. They should have a kinda {{handshake}} or something instead... Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is the very first time that someone sent apologies after an argument, in Wikipedia, at least. And it feels a bit weird that they did not need to do so. I have participated in many blood-thirsty arguments here (and in other places, too) and, normally, either nobody apologises or I take the first step. And now, I see someone who need not apologise (as we did not have a quarrel but an argument [which, for reasons unknown to me, is usually used as a negative word. In fact I used like that two sentences before]) saying sorry if he had offended me, even if any offensive comments which may have been made, were made by me. I really feel very good right now. Thanks again and, please, accept my own apology, which may be much more needed than yours.--The Theosophist (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

Also, I forgot to mention that your words were of the most sincere I have ever read after a wrangle. I would have really felt very sorry if our exchanges had looked like a brawl to you, but I am very glad that you confirmed the opposite in your message. Furthermore, I would like to thank you for your good words concerning my contributions (in fact I am a bit flattered). By the way, for your information, I am British. Have a nice day!--The Theosophist (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S.

I also believe that this was the beginning of a good friendship. Again, sorry for all wrongdoings and thanks for all good words.--The Theosophist (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC) @The Theosophist: well, when one is wrong, one says sorry. I was wrong as I kinda slapped you over the head a bit early. I totally agree about quarrels/arguments/discussions, the whole point of WP:RFD is to discuss things and necessarily that means having disagreements before we achieve consensus. Unfortunately, in print I can sometimes come over far harsher than if said face to face with a smile would not be taken that way, so I apologised because I thought it did. I just served out a 7 day ban from another user who was a bit more touchy than you are! Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SimonTrew. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of What is God, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 is only for recently-created redirects. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD: thanks for that. Over at WP:RFD another user did a special:search on the prefix for "What is" and found stacks of them I have been going through them. If there is a better way to list them without causing you trouble I should be glad to know it. Some are valid at titles of books or lectures etc, and some are nonsense, I am just racking through them. It's essentially a bulk listing but they fall in different categories and it is hard to say sometimes exactly which they fall in. Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we're tying to do, essentially, is get rid of the "What is" at the start of things since consensus is that that is a job for Yahoo! Answers or Ask Jeeves, and not in itself encylopaedic, Of course if it is the title of a book or manifesto it should stay. I think you are wrong on "What is God" but that is how we achieve consensus, I just don't want to cause trouble at CSD listing it all individually, usually i would do a bulk listing at RfD, but consensus is to delete the lot, really. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the RfD discussion? If there was a clear consensus to delete all redirects starting "What is", deletion could be linked to that, though I don't myself see a strong need for deletion. R3 is explicitly only for recently-created redirects, because of the possibility of breaking external inward links, and I am not happy doing IAR speedies. Perhaps batch RfD nominations? JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCD: Actually it is WP:RFD#When was the Berlin Wall built (I guessed it correctly as 1961 but nobody gave me a teddy bear yet) But I think the consensus that these kinda question forms of "Who was" or "What is" or "Where is" and so on do nog belong on WP: if you want to know when the Berlin Wall was built, you look up Berlin Wall. I mean, surely someone who is intelligent but ignorant (like myself) would be able to find an entry in an encylopaedia.

It's difficult to batch list at RfD not just technically but because well CSD is the first port of call for some of them. I'm really sorry to waste your time. Haven't even started on "When is" yet but I think I just about finished "What is". Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Si, you will probably be interested in User:Siuenti/redirectsfromquestions. I think some at least of these should be kept, such as When is Christmas? which I just made as a possible test case. Siuenti (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your permission, I shall add to that @Siuenti:, with those that I find, but since it's your user page, I should not like to do so without permission. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit it, or copy it somewhere. Siuenti (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: I'm honoured to know you. I disagree that redirects like When is Christmas are useful (and since you just created it as a test case I will take it to CSD and let's see what happens) because when people celebrate ChristmasI depends not only on their religion, which is listed and it could be R to section that way, but on their particular form of Christianity: the Dutch tend to celebrate more on St Nicholas's Day, December 5; Hungarians on December 24.

Similarly, in the UK for example we pay our income taxes on 6 April because it was Lady Day before we lost twelve days in 1752 because of the shift from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar and nobody wanted to pay their year's taxes for 351 days'-worth, so the government of the day shifted when one's taxes are due back to give a whole yearful. True, but not a lot of people know that. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Si, in case you were wondering how Module:RfD came to be, the initial discussion can be found at the following location: User talk:Codename Lisa/Archive 12#Think you may be able to help edit Template:Rfd/core?. The discussion started on Codename Lisa's talk page, but the after realizing that my requested addition functionality was not possible in the "Template:" namespace, Jackmcbarn noticed the discussion, and eventually created Module:RfD. And for the short version: Module:RfD exists so that pages that have transcluded redirects that are nominated for RfD (such as template or file namespace redirects that are transcluded) do not also transclude Template:Rfd. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: thanks for that. The thing is at the moment it is kinda "blocking", because its author doesn't seem to accept it has bugs (I have over thirty years behind the belt as a professional software engineer) and will not acknowledge or accept a code review, a standard procedure in software engineering). So basically they have been WP:BOLD, all well and good, but will not accept any criticism. So delete it, then. I'd write it properly in about two minutes. The argument that "But you have been using it" is tu quoque because I haven't had a choice. My argument is also that it is entirely useless: We managed for many years without it and it just gets in the way. What value does it add? 17:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What bugs? You have said more than once that the module has bugs but no-one else has reported them and none of the other editors who have looked at it can see them. Can you describe the bugs, i.e. describe what problems you are seeing, giving any reproduction steps necessary, here or on the module/template talk page: Template_talk:Rfd?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: indeed. Inspecting the code, the "if args.cagegory then" has an "else" and another "else" but no tail case as a catch-all. So if it doesn't meet any of those conditions it fails. "return makeRfdNotice(frame.args) .. '\n' .. frame.args.content end" is also a bug in my opinion, becuse it basically says "I give up", it is not a code bug but an author bug. "if target and not target.isRedirect and target ~= pframe:getTitle() then" has no else statement so that falls through, and mw.uri.encode(deleteReason) category, isError and '[[Category:RfD errors]] also falls through. I can do that just by inspection because it is my job. Si Trew (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you just described above is you misunderstanding how it works, not actual bugs. "the "if args.cagegory then" has an "else" and another "else" but no tail case as a catch-all. So if it doesn't meet any of those conditions it fails" Not true. The final "else" is the "catch-all". return makeRfdNotice(frame.args) .. '\n' .. frame.args.content end" is also a bug in my opinion, becuse it basically says "I give up", it is not a code bug but an author bug. That's not giving up; it's what it does if it doesn't think we're in a template. " "if target and not target.isRedirect and target ~= pframe:getTitle() then" has no else statement so that falls through, and mw.uri.encode(deleteReason) category, isError and '[[Category:RfD errors]] also falls through." Those fall-throughs are also deliberate, for the same reason. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{@JohnBlackburne: I'm more than happy if you copy/paste this off of my talk page to WT:RFD, I think that would be bettter. I argue vigorously but I hope always politely and in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have an interview for a new job with Ericsson in Budapest tomorrow, so I'm unlikely to reply tomorrow. Si Trew (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you mean but it looks fine to me, fairly standard code, pretty readable by the standards of WP programming, by Jackmcbarn. We don’t have formal WP coding standards but most people follow fairly sensible conventions and the Lua environment catches many errors and enforces various things. Most importantly though it works, which is the main standard for all our programming efforts. If we rejected code that worked but didn’t look right then we would have to reject all, or at least all complex, templates still using parser functions. I'll take Lua, even badly written Lua, any day over things like this: Template:CJKV.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with the language, I must have programmed 20-odd different languages over the years and still have a manual for CORAL-66 and a VAX/VMS software handbook is literally on my desktop propping up my screen. It's how it's written, I think more care should be taken. But then, I'm used to writing safety-critical software. You can't get away with errors like that when people's lives are at risk. Si Trew (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Si, if you ever get a bit burnt out with WP:RFD, I'd say give Wikipedia:Lua requests a look. Your experience might be valued there. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Or Wikipedia:Lua/To do? Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice call. I just sometimes get a bit burnt out with life in general. I don't ask for much just a fag and a drink to go with it, but rarely get those. I do all the shopping, all the cleaning, and all the gardening and everything. I'm a bit of an insomniac and sleep about four hours a night but it leaves me four hours while others are sleeping that i can do nothing, it is not as if I can get the lawnmower out, and I just watch the shopping channels on late night TV, which can be quite funny, depending on what they are trying to flog you. No-no is on again on a one hour commercial but I don't think that would suit me, not with this beard I have been carefully growing. What is mor amazing is the number of sites adverstising bingo, and it is always women always has been, but they used to go down to the Mecca bingo hall or whatever, I think it is wrong to have gambling ads, they were'nt allowed when I was a kid. I have a fiver on the King George VI Stakes (usually run at Kempton Park) every 26 December but that is because it is my missus' birthday and it is kind a present as a bit of fun and it is an awful day to have a birthday, but I don't usually bet but I'll bet, as the pubs used to display for the 1968 Betting and Gaming Act, "Cribbage, Darts, Bar Billiards, Pool, Shove Halfpenny and Euchre may be played for small stakes on those parts of the premises licenced to the public", i.e. for tenpenny or a matchstick or whatever. (I was a licencee for a time, I've done a lot of things.) I looked it up once because people bet on mobile phones and I was unsure if it is illegal to do so in a pub, because it also said "betting and the passing of betting slips are prohibited". "Passing of betting slips" I think is pure poetry. But providing you bet for yourself on your own mobile phone, apparently it is legal. Sorry my grandfather was a bookmaker so I do know the trade and that is exactly why I don't bet! Si Trew (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on betting are actually in an awful state. About two years ago I started doing one on tic tac that is the hand signals that bookmakers' runners used to do (they all use mobile phones now) and I know top of the head is nine to two and on the shoulder is four to one (never take four to one when you can get nine to two, there's your "frac", i.e. advantage, doesn't mean you're going to win, nobody tells the horses, but if you do you get a bit more back). So I drew up all the tic tac signs like semaphore to put into the article, but for some reason never got around to finishing it. Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What bugs?

You keep claiming that my module has bugs and that I just won't acknowledge them, but you have never told me (or anyone else, for that matter) what any of these "bugs" actually are. Please describe one concrete situation where the module does the wrong thing (not just a critique of my coding style), along with steps to reproduce it, and I'd be happy to fix it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dolf van Niekerk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unisa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Si. Just wanted to let you know that your close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#Randi may be against the guideline at WP:WITHDRAWN, given that a couple of editors agree with the nominator's initial proposal for the redirect to change. I'm not going to reopen the discussion since I'm both involved in the discussion and in all effects actually neutral on the outcome, but I thought I would let you know. Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Steel1943:. The thing is when I was closing it (and I as not involved in the discussion except in my closing comments) as a {{nac}} the final comment by @65.94.43.89: was not put in, according to my browser at the time I was closing it, and so it was not technically an {{ec}} by either of us, but I would think in practice it is kinda an ec in that the final edit by 65.94 was added while I was closing it: nobody's fault, just one of those things. I know we are all WP:AGF here, and in no doubt of that, but I thought best not to reopen it and revert my close, but to add a comment afterwards to explain why I closed it. If you think it better to reopen it, I'm happy with that, I didn't know what to do. So I went WP:BOLD and redirected it to Randi (disambiguation)], I think, but if I didn't someone else did. Si Trew (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the close has been reverted. That, and the edit above mine in the discussion to retarget to the disambiguation page also went against the nominator's intent to withdraw, so there was still one vote in the discussion that went against the nominator's intent to withdraw. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Thanks for that. I stick with my Retarget, with little chance of winning, but I have translated a couple of Afrikaans articles, that were redirects, over the last couple of days, so I think I already paid my penance (never spoken Afrikaans before! Interesting language, a peculiar mix of Dutch and Engkish, as if they never read English as She is Spoke). Si Trew (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [1]

It's because the server has a cache for transcluded pages. So if you're reading the logs from WP:RFD rather than the logs for a specific date, edits to the RfDs take some time to propagate through the system. Deryck C. 10:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 ^talk 00:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Care to translate and improve/source this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: yeah I'll make a stab at it this afternoon then. It will be boring. Can you give me the full link to the English stub or the Hungarian article please. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2]♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first thing this says in Hungarian is a hatnote to say this is about Pettend in Fejer County, for the one in Baranja County, see... which one are we doing? Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Pettend, Fejér as an article, so I guess you mean the other one in Bajar county? I'm just trying to untie the knots, which is always the hardest part, the text is easy. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: And apparently created it as a draft on Hungarian wikipedia by mistake, instead of English Wikipedia. Which now has been swiftly deleted so I can't recover it. Thanks. Now I have to do it all again. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked Pettend in the article title didn't I? This needs to be translated for the Pettend article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: yes I am just trying to work out the crosslinks, Interwiki links, for starters. I'll make another stab at the text and ask for your opinion then. An hour or so. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't accuse me of ownership. The fact that you would actually do so shows that you clearly hadn't looked into why I had nominated the redirect or the history behind issues we've been having with editors creating articles in mainspace without any references or prose while a detailed draft has existed for a long time.  — ₳aron 13:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a simple remedy: report me. The fact that you deliberatly have a nickname that is hard to type is already in my mind an assumption of bad faith because the usual way to spell it would be Aaron, not with the stupid crossed initial A which is not Hebrew. So tu quoquo. You come in bad faith, you get bad faith back. Take it as you find it. Now get off my talk page. Report me or shut up, I have better things to do. Si Trew (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]