Revision as of 21:28, 13 April 2013 editDweller (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Oversighters, Administrators55,877 edits →At times like these, it's good to ...: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:53, 15 April 2013 edit undo65.24.105.132 (talk) →Sneazy, here: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 1,405: | Line 1,405: | ||
Bless you, dear ], for coming up with a comprehensive statement in reply to User:Donmust90's ]. Since I posted my reply, which took far more of my precious late-night time than I can fairly spare, I've been thinking of applying to the RD's Talk page for advice, as this question has pushed me past my ] limit. Admittedly this is the hardest week on the Israeli calendar, between ] and ] and so much to think about the dead and the circumstances past and present. So I'll be damned if I'm going to provide some persistently querying ''nudnik'' with what I consider explosive material. I consider myself as a stalwart ] and I'll continue patrolling my ] sector, but this time I'm close to losing it. Thanks for being "here" and do keep up the good work; your presence is a comfort. ''-- Cheers, ] (]) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)'' | Bless you, dear ], for coming up with a comprehensive statement in reply to User:Donmust90's ]. Since I posted my reply, which took far more of my precious late-night time than I can fairly spare, I've been thinking of applying to the RD's Talk page for advice, as this question has pushed me past my ] limit. Admittedly this is the hardest week on the Israeli calendar, between ] and ] and so much to think about the dead and the circumstances past and present. So I'll be damned if I'm going to provide some persistently querying ''nudnik'' with what I consider explosive material. I consider myself as a stalwart ] and I'll continue patrolling my ] sector, but this time I'm close to losing it. Thanks for being "here" and do keep up the good work; your presence is a comfort. ''-- Cheers, ] (]) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)'' | ||
:Happy to have helped, thanks for the lovely message. And look up: Yom Haatz is on the horizon, with Lag Ba'Omer, Yom Yerushalayim and the always-lovely Shavuot not far behind. I'd support a fairly gentle approach. I'm not ''totally convinced'' he's trolling. I'm less of a regular contributor than I used to be (really!) so feel free to ping me any time - my email is enabled. --] (]) 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | :Happy to have helped, thanks for the lovely message. And look up: Yom Haatz is on the horizon, with Lag Ba'Omer, Yom Yerushalayim and the always-lovely Shavuot not far behind. I'd support a fairly gentle approach. I'm not ''totally convinced'' he's trolling. I'm less of a regular contributor than I used to be (really!) so feel free to ping me any time - my email is enabled. --] (]) 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
== Sneazy, here == | |||
{{YGM}} |
Revision as of 22:53, 15 April 2013
Please note: ♦I rarely edit at weekends. ♦This is one of Misplaced Pages's most edited pages. ♦I am sometimes mistaken for Doug Weller, Doug Coldwell and possibly even Doug. All great editors, but they're not me. I'm more Doug-less than Douglas. My username is explained on my userpage. |
Archives |
24 December 2024 |
|
Your message
Thank you for your note, for information, I am still intending to quit permanently. Just too stubborn to be bullied into quitting and I wish to put a few things to bed first.
My main reason for quitting is a loss of faith in wikipedia's system for dealing with disruptive editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
TFAR
I'd quit while you're a little bit behind. The intended audience is clearly not in the right frame of mind this year. Leave the main page to fester. POTD is equally appalling. Enough already (as our "US brethren" would say)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers about the Blackburn Olympic blurb. Your list of old FAs has proved useful, as you may have spotted at User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad! Bencherlite 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Go right ahead. In fact, you're more than welcome to tweak the blurbs yourself - that's one of the ideas behind scheduling 14 days or more in advance (as I have managed to do at the moment) - it gives more opportunities for people to check the blurbs and articles. Bencherlite 10:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello again. If you get a chance, would you mind popping back to WP:Today's featured article/requests? There are now two suggested articles for 1st January and I'm inviting input as to which one people would prefer for the day itself and when the other one might be scheduled instead. Thanks, Bencherlite 09:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent solution - I totally agree with it. --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The selection of notable Israeli Jews in the montage at the top of the article Israeli Jews
Hi Dweller. I decided to contact you since you recently took part in the discussion on this matter. Please participate in the latest part of the discussion and help form a consensus based resulotion by stating your ideal option regarding the main issue in dispute here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Next Saturday
I'll be headed to Carrow Road next Saturday. If you happen to be going, a pint with your name on it will be available. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Really sweet of you. Sadly, I won't be there, but if I was, I think I'd need a pint at full time, given Chelsea's current form. Happy Christmas to you! --Dweller (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Duh, it's City. Still not so optimistic. --Dweller (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Xmas
Merry antipodean Xmas | |
hope yours is/was fun, and you had a good turkey :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
- I opt out of Christmas, but thanks for the good wishes. I hope your upside-down turkey was moist and tasty. Looking forward to seeing what another kind of bird manages to do tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed - young Jackson is getting lots of interviews...nice feelgood factor happening at present, i thought that was going to be an easter egg link to da Canaries....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
User talk vandalism
Please revoke 101.161.160.121's talk page access as they are misusing the talk page. Forgot to put name 10:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sjö
I just want to draw your attention to this post to me on Sjö's talk page: I am, again, astonished at your blatant misrepresentations of the thruth. You have been lying and distorting the truth since your first post in this latest exchange when you claimed that no reason was given and I immediately pointed you to your Swedish talk page where the reasons were given and which you read after your block. As I said before, nothing good will come of further discussions here. I request that you don't post on my talk page again, nor contact me in any other way on or off-wikipedia.Sjö (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Since then, Sjö has suggested (on the Talk Page of the Shechita article) that we cooperate and has suggested a structure, etc. In the paragraph above, Sjö is complaining that I said I had been given no reasons for the block (I said on Jimmy Wale's page) and the Swedes replied "indeed I had". Well, I meant reasons that were true, as it was alleged I had called people antisemite, when I said that the Swedish law is antisemitic (it was one of the race laws removed from every country in Nazi-occupied Europe - at least every law had identical wording (that stunning must precede bleeding out/exsanguination) and Grillo immediately countered with "You called me an antisemite!" and later blocked me "for calling people antisemites" I do not call a reason that is what the police in England call a "verbal" by putting words in my mouth a reason.
That is the explanation and background, but right now I do not want this carping to go on for ever, so I am drawing your attention to it. RPSM (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Tenaciously wikilawyering about an old block that the admins are resolute over is not going to persuade them to undo it. What will persuade them is evidence that you can edit collaboratively in a manner that is not heated with people who take an opposing view. I suggest you concentrate wholeheartedly on working with Sjo for some months and then ask them what it'd take to persuade them to support an unblock proposal. I'd suggest strongly that as Grillo feels you insulted them, you start by asking Sjo to pass on an apology from you, even if or perhaps especially if it was not your intent to insult. If I step on someone's toe by accident, I apologise, I don't shout at them that I didn't do it on purpose. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Feb 14
Assuming that Magiciandude hasn't worked significantly on any other FAs without being credited at FAC (he only has one star at WP:WBFAN, so probably not), Romances would get one point for his nomination or support, nothing for widely covered, nothing for FA age, etc, so total 1 point. But I suspect that points won't be the decisive factor in the decision for St Valentine's Day, so go ahead and add another alternative so we can see what everyone prefers.
Thanks, incidentally, for the survey you're carrying out of the older FAs not to have had their moment in the sun. I'm finding it very useful in working out which to avoid and which I can select! Bencherlite 14:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Your obvious use of the list has encouraged me to keep working on it, though I do find the storm-related articles irksomely dull. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
On the main point, I'll leave that to Magiciandude. I felt pretty rude mentioning it in his absence, so formally nominating would be... --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dweller! Thanks for the suggestion! Yes it would be seem that age would be weighed against me since it hasn't even been a year that I got it FA. I was going to wait until next year to suggest it, but now that you mentioned it, Valentine's Day does seem very appropriate for it and it never occurred to me. Not only is it my first FA, but it's also the first article about a foreign-language album to be FA, just to throw that in there. Erick (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like there's a good option already running for this year. I suggest you nominate it next year - and give me a bell when you do! It's a nice FA, good luck with your next one. I found the first one was the most daunting. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, will do and thanks! :) Erick (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to do this?
... this? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I can only assume you clicked rollback by mistake (don't worry, I've done it in the past too), so I've restored the comments. An optimist on the run! 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Weird, I was on the train at the time. Definitely not deliberate. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Best wishes for the New Year! | ||
Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! |
- Thank you, happy new year to you. --Dweller (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Icelandic Phallological Museum TFA nomination
In the comments on my nomination of Icelandic Phallological Museum for TFA, another editor has suggested Feb 13th as an alternative date. Would you support the nomination if it was switched to that date? Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd support pretty much any date not connected to Feb 14. If the point of selecting Feb 13 is to somehow connect it to Valentine's Day, I'd oppose. If it's a date with relevance to the topic, I'd support. Otherwise, why not put it into the 'put it on Main Page when it suits you' bucket? --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's no date with specific relevance to the topic. Feb 13 is, I think, meant to be a compromise date. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: crat statement
I do think the statement is somewhat premature although I agree with or don't mind most of it. Let's wait and see what happens with the Foundation's SUL policy. If there is indeed a global merge a lot of our decision making will become irrelevant. Andrevan@ 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your heart behind making a statement, but I don't think I can support the action of a "crat statement." Although we collaborate with each other, solicit each other's opinions, and have access to very private information, in the end us crats aren't a monolithic identity. If a kerfuffle happens with an administrative action, we don't need all the admins to create an admin statement for the community. Nor would I expect or even desire to see a checkuser statement, an oversight statement, or a steward statement. We're no ArbCom, heck, we're not even an Esperanza. I think it would be good to simply do as we've done before: Make our own stances firm and clear, and agree and disagree as we see fit. bibliomaniac15 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. I think I was edging toward that, by making the statement in the first person ("I" not "we"). I'm trying to come up with a statement that as many of us can feel happy to support as possible. Andrevan has some reservations (above) which are thoughtful and thought provoking, but don't necessitate any changes to the text. I think your understandable point also needs no changes made to the statement. I was never under the illusion that all the Crats would support it - for a start, a good number of us rarely or never act as Crats. :0) --Dweller (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
As you approached me directly without linking to any discussion or anything, I'm left a bit baffled. I read part of the thread on WP:BN a few days ago but I've not kept too up to date with it. Could you clarify what exactly it is that you are trying to accomplish with getting us to agree to this statement? I apologise for how sarcastic that question sounds, but it is in fact an honest question. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been offline for most of the past few days, so I've honestly no idea what this is about. I'm coming down with a bit of a cold now unfortunately, so I don't anticipate that I'll be much more active in the coming days either, so I'd rather abstain from all this. Hersfold 01:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Explanation
Thanks all. Very brief explanation: we've had some unusual drama at BN, Crats have been disagreeing on what policy/guidelines say. Furthermore, there's been an unpleasant tang in the air that implies that Crats have been trying to expand their powers.
To my mind, the whole affair has rather undermined our position as careful and considered assessors and implementers of consensus. The statement is designed to help address this.
The statement I put together was intended so that Crats from both sides of the discussion could agree to it, which has been successful. I'm going to post at BN soon.
If you're not sure of the ins and outs, or are unwell or inactive for some other reason, that's absolutely fine. I deliberately worded the statement as one that individual Crats can support, not as an en-bloc statement that reflects the whole group. Thanks for reading. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the principle of what you're said, and the overall purpose of the statement, but I have disagreements with the wording and some points in the statement, so I regret I am unable to sign it myself. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine. I wish I'd seen this before I posted it to BN, or I might have tried to wordsmith it, but as I've said, it's not an en-banc statement. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you wish for me to post on BN that I agree with the overarching purpose of the statement but am unable to sign due to some minor(ish) issues I have with it? Or do you feel that would weaken your stance? I do not wish to do that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the former would be the most transparent and honest, if you have the time. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Of course. I would be happy to. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the former would be the most transparent and honest, if you have the time. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you wish for me to post on BN that I agree with the overarching purpose of the statement but am unable to sign due to some minor(ish) issues I have with it? Or do you feel that would weaken your stance? I do not wish to do that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine. I wish I'd seen this before I posted it to BN, or I might have tried to wordsmith it, but as I've said, it's not an en-banc statement. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
List of Norwich City F.C. players
Hi Dweller - this article is in an awful state and currently up for AfD. Any chance you could use your knowledge/resources to bring the article up to scratch please? Willing to do it myself but I'm doing similar on other lists and thought I'd give you a shout first. GiantSnowman 11:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't know it existed. But now, I'm perplexed. Both the main article (Norwich City F.C.) and the club template (Template:Norwich City F.C.) link to Category:Norwich City F.C. players. With good reason: what value does this list article add to the Category? I suppose what it does is consolidate in one place things like appearances and goals, but people can either see them at the players' biographies, or see the leading stats at List of Norwich City F.C. records, so what's the purpose of an article like this? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- They're extremely popular and useful as a record of every player to play for the club - see Category:Lists of association football players by club in England, we've got a number of GAs there. I think they're definitely notable, if done properly. GiantSnowman 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound argumentative (!) but while I understand both of those points, neither really answers my question. I'll see if the listmeister general has a view, too. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just find them extremely useful as a concise history of a club's players. I'm sure TRM will be able to expand more eloquently than me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- <grin> OK. The AfD looks like it's close to a snowball keep anyway, with good reason. Sourcing will be tricky, as I'm not aware of anything online that's useful here, beyond showing the leading all-time stats. I have a copy of Canary Citizens, but it's badly out of date and it'd be most laborious to plough through it. Unless someone decides is RS. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neil Brown's site is a perfect start; I used it as the basis for the lists I created (1 now completed; 2 others still in progress). GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Great source, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neil Brown's site is a perfect start; I used it as the basis for the lists I created (1 now completed; 2 others still in progress). GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- <grin> OK. The AfD looks like it's close to a snowball keep anyway, with good reason. Sourcing will be tricky, as I'm not aware of anything online that's useful here, beyond showing the leading all-time stats. I have a copy of Canary Citizens, but it's badly out of date and it'd be most laborious to plough through it. Unless someone decides is RS. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just find them extremely useful as a concise history of a club's players. I'm sure TRM will be able to expand more eloquently than me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mean to sound argumentative (!) but while I understand both of those points, neither really answers my question. I'll see if the listmeister general has a view, too. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- They're extremely popular and useful as a record of every player to play for the club - see Category:Lists of association football players by club in England, we've got a number of GAs there. I think they're definitely notable, if done properly. GiantSnowman 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the article, see what Struway2 has been up to lately at WP:FLC with Birmingham City's players. There's plenty of scope for a series of player articles, fewer than 25, 25 to 99, more than 100.... and all we need is sources for each and every player (not Soccerbase)! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- So, what source does one use for players currently at a club? --Dweller (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, good point, ncfc themselves is a good starting point. The biggest issue is with the players that drop between the last book and the most recent updates. Then you have to work a little harder....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of "613 Commandments" at Reference Desk/Humanities
Dweller, as a "fellow traveler" in halacha, I would advise you to be really careful and circumspect about going down this road on subjects like "idolatry" and "slavery" in a place like WP:RD/H. By modern standards, execution of a lot of the halachos you mention there appears very harsh, and while people who are talmidei chachamim understand these things, they are complex and involved, and there are plenty of respondents who will have no interest in listening anyway. Consider (in this context) the halacha with respect to teaching non-Jews Torah. I don't subscribe to it as an utter ban at all times and at all levels of detail, but a thread like that one is a great example of a place where it is arguably not good to go.
One other thought: If you ever start going down the road of Eved Ivri, I would almost immediately point out that the concept is far more accurately described by the English phrase "indentured servitude" than by the English word "slavery". Remember that the root ayin-bet-daled has meanings ranging everywhere from "plain old work" to "slavery" and everywhere in between. There's no reason to make it sound worse than it is. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- You might have noticed that I responded (not initiated) to complaints that the response to idolators was harsh by pointing out that the Bible's lenient approach to slavery shows we can't approach it on modern terms. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did. I didn't see anything wrong with what you actually wrote—on the contrary, in fact. My points are more than (a) at the end of the day I don't think you'll ever satisfy that forum, no matter how hard you try, and (b) you should call "slavery" of the Eved Ivri type "indentured servitude" instead. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"A*****e"
Wow, just noticed Alan's little outburst before being unblocked. Hilarious. Please un-redact it though, I'd like the community to be fully aware of the way he conducts his conversations. I believe that's my right. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- And while we're there, I'm not at all satisfied with "You get users like Alan that get blocked for petty shit like this and you have other users and admins doing whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want and we just turn our backs to it. " from Kumioko either, a direct and unsubstantiated personal attack. I've left a note at Kumioko's page, but I'm surprised this kind of baseless accusation was allowed to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I clarified on my talk page. It wasn't directed at TRM. Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Adelaide Leak
Thanks for the help at the talk page and the defence on the main page talk; it's not the first time you have come to the aid of this article in the face of some vocal opposition to its existence, and it is greatly appreciated. I don't think I'll be nominating for TFA again for a while though! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- My pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ProtectionBot
DYKUpdateBot — I told you so!
Finding this page by accident and scrolling to the bottom, I saw your small-text comment :-) I know it's not January 2008 anymore, but what is five years? Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- <grins> --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Precious
gentle advice
Thank you for quality articles on English football clubs, such as Bayern Munich v Norwich City, for your services as bureaucrat and oversighter, for help to not shouting, for your suggestions for wikistressed editors, for ideas for a future, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (11 January 2009, 19 April 2009)!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's very kind, thank you. I loved receiving those awards in 2009 and it's great that you've kept the tradition running. Phaedriel, who had the idea in the first place, is sadly missed. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- So is PumpkinSky who (as Rlevse) did it for the longest time and gave me mine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- All things considered, Rlevse's departure was quite a shock. Doing the award is a good thing. More power to your elbow. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I felt the same. It was the first time I saw how the project deals with contributors. The second time, BarkingMoon, I wrote He was despised. Next shock was when PumpkinSky left again and was blocked, for being Rlevse, about a year ago. Skipping a few, now he left again feeling he's not wanted. It's a few who don't want him, and many who miss him, but how to reason with a feeling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- All things considered, Rlevse's departure was quite a shock. Doing the award is a good thing. More power to your elbow. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- So is PumpkinSky who (as Rlevse) did it for the longest time and gave me mine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Usurpation Request
Could you please review my usurpation request? WP:Usurp. Thanks! ―Rosscoolguy 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
PONY!
Pony!
Congratulations! For your helping hand to wikistressed editors, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)they're also expensive when they go wrong, but otherwise they're brilliant! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC) That's very kind, thank you. I'm glad you liked my essay. I have written a few - see User:Dweller/quirky. I like horses, but not on shirts - a point I'm surprised that TRM didn't mention, being that he's a Tractor Boy! --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Bryan Gunn
Hi Dweller, I see you were heavily involved in the FA promotion of Bryan Gunn. I have gone through the article to update dead links but three remain. If you could take a look when you have a minute, it would be good to get everything working again. Thanks, C679 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice work. One of the three was easy to fix. The Gunn Club one was really hard - I think everyone just takes it for granted! Anyway, done, although badly formatted ... I can't format refs to save my life. I'm a bit stumped for the third one as archive.org doesn't seem to have a mirror of the old canaries site in its archive. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I managed to pick up about 60% of the old canaries site from the archive, but it's a problem which has affected many football biographies and stadium articles too. Still, one bad link from 105 is less than 1%! Thanks, C679 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- <grins>Nice work, thanks. You might like to know I'm planning to see if I can get the article on Main Page on Dec 22, his 50th birthday. Meanwhile, I'll look to replace that one deadlink quote with a similar one. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I managed to pick up about 60% of the old canaries site from the archive, but it's a problem which has affected many football biographies and stadium articles too. Still, one bad link from 105 is less than 1%! Thanks, C679 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Question regarding username renaming
Hello Dweller,
if I renamed my username only on enwiki, but then I also want to rename the same global name in another wiki, would there be any issues? I was told that if I rename it on another wiki, then I must lose my current username on enwiki. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. I think you've been told wrong. "Users can still have differently named accounts on two sites; however, these accounts will not be linked for unified login". In practice, this might make life a little awkward. If you decide to get an SUL for one of your accounts, it will automatically log you in under that name on all wikis you visit, which could prove confusing or worse give an impression of sockpuppetry. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Clio
Indeed, where is she? I have been largely inactive in the last couple of years, so I apparently missed her departure. Someone asked on her talk page about books she was writing - do you know anything of that? — Sebastian 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because it's so long ago, I can't remember what I know that's onwiki and what's not and I don't want to betray any confidences. I suspect if you trawl her last month or two's edits, you'll track things down. Apologies if that's a wriggling response. I feel wriggly over it. --Dweller (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, I understand. My post was already a bit awkward for the same reason. I also saw what that other poster saw, but was left with the same question. But it doesn't matter; please feel free to delete this conversation; we can always communicate by mail. Good night! — Sebastian 23:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Bodyline
I just added a little bit to bodyline about the changes to the law about fielders behind square and couldn't help but notice that parts of the article are getting a bit scruffy, and it's certainly not as polished as it was when it reached FA. I tidied up a little bit, but the really messy part (it's become slightly incoherent in places) is the "In Australia" section. There's no great urgency about this as such; it's already been TFA, but I think it's something of showpiece article for WP:CRIC, and it gets scary numbers of views for a cricket article. I'll probably pick away at it slowly from time to time, but I think you are one of the few survivors from when it went to FA (I think the much-missed YM did quite a bit of work). Fancy polishing it up a little over some vaguely-defined time period? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to find some time. Might be worth doing a diff comparison on the relevant section, between what it said when the article passed FA and now and see what's useful addition and what's junk. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk page deletion
As the deleting admin, would you comment on the request at WP:REFUND#User talk:Gb? JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've replied there. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments at WT:CRIC
Fair point, it's just a case of my frustration that we get bogged down in procedure and a worry that we rely too heavily on certain sources - CA, CI and Wisden - and that what they say goes. They don't have the authoritative place in cricket that they once did, and I think the cricket project places far too much emphasis on them. Wisden or CricketArchive may say that the recent West Indies tour of Bangladesh took place in 2012-13, but as far as the Bangladesh Cricket Board are concerned it took place in 2012. As I said, yes a tour is part of a season spanning two years, but it doesn't itself span those two years, as I was trying to point out with my comparisons with two other sports. It's revealing that those comparisons are ignored. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Just, wanna say sorry since you think i try to threat you. It was not my intention, i was just trying to help the user so he could get an answer from the family quickly and easily and hopefully prevent it turned into a lawsuit. Please, dont ban me forever ): 109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Question
Hi Dweller, I'm wondering about why I have to log in with my old username when I visit other projects? Is the rename only for this project or for all the wikisites? T4B (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- This project only, which the instructions should make clear. If you want to rename the others, you'll need to do it by contacting local bureaucrats on each one, or (much easier) asking a steward, who can do the whole lot in one go. Give them a link to your rename at WP:CHU/S here, to show what's been done. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Actually, if there are local bureaucrats on a project, you must ask them first before contacting a steward. --Rschen7754 10:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your replies. I will try to contact local bureaucrats on other projects. T4B (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- He has. I'm a bureaucrat. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Actually, if there are local bureaucrats on a project, you must ask them first before contacting a steward. --Rschen7754 10:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Change my username
Hi Dweller, im wondering how i change my username to abkn264? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthBankTower (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi! I've placed a request on your behalf at the appropriate venue, so you can be renamed sooner rather than latter (since Dweller rarely edits on weekends). Happy editing and, should you have any questions, you can ask on my talk page, the Help Desk, or here (I'm more than certain that Dweller would be happy to help). Regards, Tyrol5 13:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tyrol. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Paul Neil Milne Johnstone
How can BLP apply to someone who died over 8 years ago? AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. A reasonable question, here's a hopefully reasonable answer. WP:BLP tells me to protect individuals if they're less than 115 years old, when there's no reliable source stating that they are dead. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Full Circle (2008 film)
The article Full Circle (2008 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- IMDB page is non-existent. Only reference on this film is to IMDB.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Manway 05:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've improved the article, which had fallen off my watchlist, with two new sources and removed the prod. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Ping
I've emailed you requesting an admin opinion on a neutrality/bio matter. Tony (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Rambling Man
Hi Dweller,
I know I should take a cup of tea and relax or whatever, but I'm about sick of The Rambling Man calling me a liar. . I'm going out of town for two days, when I get back I'll need to to restore that userpage you deleted previously. I've had enough of this guy. --IP98 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think you called it right in your first few words. The interval seems to have done a power of good. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Mick Luckhurst
Unreferenced material on BLPs - contentious or not - should be challenged and (in my view) removed. Stub first, ask questions later. It's better to re-add later once reliable sources have been found, as opposed to hoping somebody locates sources to support the material that is already there. GiantSnowman 13:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that that is your opinion, but I can't see support for that stance in policy. I've only seen that contentious material should be removed. Can you point me to the right place, please? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BLP. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." GiantSnowman 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the same as saying "contentious material should be removed". It depends on your definition of "contentious" or "any material challenged" or worse "likely" to be challenged. Removing all unreferenced information in BLPs is slightly odd though, I've seen plenty of tags floating around in BLPs. Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged? A difficult situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged?" - my sentiments exactly. We cannot be too careful with unreferenced material, especially with BLPs. Tagging something with does actual little to improve the encyclopedia and many remain tagged for years. I removed one a few years ago that was first added back in 2007! GiantSnowman 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the same as saying "contentious material should be removed". It depends on your definition of "contentious" or "any material challenged" or worse "likely" to be challenged. Removing all unreferenced information in BLPs is slightly odd though, I've seen plenty of tags floating around in BLPs. Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged? A difficult situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BLP. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." GiantSnowman 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't disagree more with the idea that all unsourced information in BLPs should be removed on sight. The policy makes it clear that it's dealing with material that is contentious and/or likely to be challenged. That is not everything. You may be unhappy that this leaves a subjective decision to be made on each and every statement, but Misplaced Pages's policies frequently rely on subjective decisions being made. If you disagree with the policy, feel free to initiate a discussion about it at the talk page, but you don't have a policy-based justification for removing everything unsourced from a BLP because someone might challenge it. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, everything is likely to be challenged - hence the numerous edit wars that plague en.wiki on a daily basis. Your are seriously under-estimating the harm that BLPs can do, and the need to be extra-strict with them. What I am removing is, for all intents and purposes, unverified (and potentially incorrect) information agbout living people, and I am flabbergasted that you have any kind of issue with that. GiantSnowman 13:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain why the BLP policy doesn't say "Any material must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." What is the relevance of "challenged or likely to be challenged" and the earlier usage of "contentious" in the policy? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Because Misplaced Pages is not perfect, and neither is its policies. GiantSnowman 14:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please explain why the BLP policy doesn't say "Any material must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." What is the relevance of "challenged or likely to be challenged" and the earlier usage of "contentious" in the policy? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
re
Regarding this. Sorry about that. — Ched : ? 17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh gosh, don't worry about it. I wasn't trying to complain, just ensuring my suggestion was seen. It's my fault for deciding not to subsection it in the first place. Kind of you to apologise, but really not necessary. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate that anyone can post there, but I can see the concept that there's times it's easier to follow if you guys (not sure if there's any female type crats or not come to think of it) can keep your own stuff together too. Hmmm ... Maybe next time I have reason to post there I'll add a "=== Comments by others ===" sections - seems to work for the arbs. <Ched goes off to ponder this new insight> Cheers. — Ched : ? 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Operation Tracer, Gibraltar
When you have an opportunity, please see my response to your questions on the talk page of my article Operation Tracer, Gibraltar. Thank you. Anne (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll reply there. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
At times like these, it's good to ...
Bless you, dear Dweller, for coming up with a comprehensive statement in reply to User:Donmust90's latest. Since I posted my reply, which took far more of my precious late-night time than I can fairly spare, I've been thinking of applying to the RD's Talk page for advice, as this question has pushed me past my AGF limit. Admittedly this is the hardest week on the Israeli calendar, between Yom Hashoah and Yom Hazikaron and so much to think about the dead and the circumstances past and present. So I'll be damned if I'm going to provide some persistently querying nudnik with what I consider explosive material. I consider myself as a stalwart RefDesk cadre and I'll continue patrolling my SME sector, but this time I'm close to losing it. Thanks for being "here" and do keep up the good work; your presence is a comfort. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to have helped, thanks for the lovely message. And look up: Yom Haatz is on the horizon, with Lag Ba'Omer, Yom Yerushalayim and the always-lovely Shavuot not far behind. I'd support a fairly gentle approach. I'm not totally convinced he's trolling. I'm less of a regular contributor than I used to be (really!) so feel free to ping me any time - my email is enabled. --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Sneazy, here
Hello, Dweller. Please check your email; you've got mail!It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Category: