re thryduulf my closing statement was not aimed at any user in particular which you can tell by the fact that i did not refer to any users in particular you did not specify user names but you did specify users by their arguments unhelpful meta discussion about the use of t prefixes in general but when an editor writes incorrectly you do not use that argument this way my arguments were rejected explicitly in one stroke while wrong arguments are still weighing in the same can be said for the overstated consensus not thrown out more on this later you also have used the comment that it is which is a malversion of my arguments you did not find from all this i feel read that only my arguments were targeted off topic not whether t redirects in general should be deleted this is bs i reasoned like a t redirect is bad in mainspace so these twelve should all be deleted plain sound reasoning i did use argumental examples in some places but i did not nowhere argue that other non listed rs are to be deleted it was someone else who expanded it into too wide not me keep'er technical i admid this is a third keep'er invokes an wp ns aliases but this time it must be deemed not too general i can not follow but i must conclude that if keep individual pages were reasoned to be kept why not conclude the the others are to go requirement for individual mentioning only works one way also in one point you complain that there was no discussion about the individual redirects well that could also be because an argument applies to the whole list a logic you disallowed explicitly then when i do point to individually addressed rs here above linked you do not see a contradiction in that even worse when i do demonstrate there are rs named specifically you respond here with but not everybody agreed with you this does not undo my point that individual templates were addressed confusingly here you are jumping the reasoning as was repeatedly pointed out the most recent times that it was discussed the consensus was that at least some were useful and that there was no consensus for a prohibition on their creation or use here it is you introducing arguments from outside the rfd list at hand earlier rfd's outcomes as an argument how am i allowed to argue with that wheni use an argument involving general sanity not even stepping outside this rfd it ends up in the bin and above i linked tot two more recent r deletion conclusions a g non controversial speedy march and a full rfd list deletion in december that contradict your reasoning also you write t as a prefix or the use of such prefixes in general in the closing and xfd not rfd here that is an expansion of the topic beyond rfd why is that allowed it doesn't matter how long ago a consensus was reached it applies until there is a newer consensus formed it doesn't somehow expire and consensus can change and older consensuses are often more likely to but no was reached repeat there is no consensus you are repeating an editors' injection not a conclusion into an essay with that indeed it is irrelevant how long ago the irrelevance was written today it is still irrelevant ii note that you took over this bogus claim from an editor as for old or new 'consensus' can an admin research report how many t redirect were deleted without rfd over the years of course they leave almost no trace for non admins but i'd like to see the numbers arguments for all t redirect deletions since template space was introduced some 'consensus' must be visible in there too there is no consensus so there is no argument from that non existent consensus and don't blame me for introducing history as a reason yes you argued about specific redirects but not everybody agreed with you out of logic why do you say this you concluded that there was no individual targeting and check that the nom is addressing them by listing them and that the nom is detailing arguments very specific the i point to them and you jump to arguments did you or did you not see them when closing in particular your proving that transclusion didn't work was argued to be not relevant to way the redirect was used remember these are redirects to templates not templates and and your opinion alone does not demonstrate consensus a catch you created first you complain that no individual rs were mentioned then i point to one that was already there and then you say but that is not consensus yeah and what did you expect of an argument you only accept arguments that so