User talk:Dweller/Archive2012
Have a look at
editPrincess Beatrice for a heritage thingy. Also Shergar's approach, different but similar... Not quite family trees but I'll see if I can find one of those now... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, lookie here: {{Family tree}}. Coding looks not too bad... what you got in mind? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Come have a chat with me and Ealdgyth at Talk:William the Conqueror? --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The example at Princess Beatrice's page is exactly what William's page had before, and it was awful. It doesn't take into account siblings, aunts and uncles etc. You'd never find something like that in a history book. Nev1 (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree it looks awful. That's why I suggested having a look-see at {{Family tree}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I got an edit conflict while expanding my above comment. The format produced by {{Family tree}} at least looks like an actual family tree, but looking at the code I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to draw one. Someone from the graphics lab may be able to help. Nev1 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good idea (what's the graphics lab?) - there are some... unconventional relationships in the mix for The Bastard. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I got an edit conflict while expanding my above comment. The format produced by {{Family tree}} at least looks like an actual family tree, but looking at the code I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to draw one. Someone from the graphics lab may be able to help. Nev1 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree it looks awful. That's why I suggested having a look-see at {{Family tree}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The example at Princess Beatrice's page is exactly what William's page had before, and it was awful. It doesn't take into account siblings, aunts and uncles etc. You'd never find something like that in a history book. Nev1 (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop is a place you can go if you want an image cleaned, vectorised, or something. From what I remember it doesn't really have enough editors to go round and as such there can be a bit of a queue, but it might be worth making enquiries. Nev1 (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
<-"Vectorised" Sounds uncomfortable. Anyway, good idea. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't work for 'em, but I got the tools... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello , admin! You deleted a page Raja Rasalu to be very short. I want to create much developed article for the same. Can I see the previous contents of the page that were deleted by you, Please? And please leave a talkback message on my talk page. TariButtar (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- thanks, dear. Instead of informing for reply you replied on my talk page that's the best.
and I wanna know upto how much contents an article is considered able to be deleted as short/very short? TariButtar (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Grant Crookes
editHi there - do you have any other sources? I'm not happy he meets GNG and am considering AfD. GiantSnowman 12:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Picking a few from Google: ([1]), ([2]), and this lot: ([3]). Incidentally, he seems to pass FOOTY notability guidelines. That list of Hartlepool players mentioned in the prod may well be incomplete. It's hardly the most reliable of sites. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all, the Neil Brown site is complete, reliable & very much respected. He's not listed here either. GiantSnowman 13:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strange/interesting. There's stacks and stacks of media coverage of him. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ROUTINE - local news saying that Garth Crooks becomes manager of local team. Do you really think an obscure non-league manager is notable? GiantSnowman 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really care. Just we shouldn't prod an article which is covered in lots of sources. To me, ROUTINE would cover things like "Foo knocked in the winning goal", not an appointment that's been covered. I'm also not sure we can discount copious RS all saying he played notable football, because of omission from other RS. Perhaps the geezer changed his name? Who knows. Happy for you to AfD it if you like. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- What RS say he played professional football? GiantSnowman 13:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Hartlepool and Darlington have both had non-league spells. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hartlepool have not been in non-league since before WWII, and even if they had, he would still be listed at the 'inthemadcrowd.co.uk' linked above - that site is ridiculously comprehensive and even includes youth/reserve players. Likewise, Darlo were in non-league 1989-1990 (and 2010-present), so when he apparently played for them they were in the Football League still. GiantSnowman 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- <Puzzled> Then, as we have RS saying he played 50 times for them, we are back to the comment I made at 13:30. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probability of a lazy journalist copying incorrect stats from Wikipedia without checking? Very high. GiantSnowman 14:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- <Puzzled> Then, as we have RS saying he played 50 times for them, we are back to the comment I made at 13:30. --Dweller (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hartlepool have not been in non-league since before WWII, and even if they had, he would still be listed at the 'inthemadcrowd.co.uk' linked above - that site is ridiculously comprehensive and even includes youth/reserve players. Likewise, Darlo were in non-league 1989-1990 (and 2010-present), so when he apparently played for them they were in the Football League still. GiantSnowman 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Hartlepool and Darlington have both had non-league spells. --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- What RS say he played professional football? GiantSnowman 13:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really care. Just we shouldn't prod an article which is covered in lots of sources. To me, ROUTINE would cover things like "Foo knocked in the winning goal", not an appointment that's been covered. I'm also not sure we can discount copious RS all saying he played notable football, because of omission from other RS. Perhaps the geezer changed his name? Who knows. Happy for you to AfD it if you like. --Dweller (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:ROUTINE - local news saying that Garth Crooks becomes manager of local team. Do you really think an obscure non-league manager is notable? GiantSnowman 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Strange/interesting. There's stacks and stacks of media coverage of him. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all, the Neil Brown site is complete, reliable & very much respected. He's not listed here either. GiantSnowman 13:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI, now at AfD. GiantSnowman 15:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
"Terrorism"
editHello there! Certainly, in an ideal Wikipedian world, the term "terrorist" should be expunged from certain areas of the 9/11 article, but at the moment I am not going to go through and remove them all, considering the backlash that I would undoubtedly receive from certain editors, many of whom are still very sensitive about the issue. However, it is academically recognised that the word "terrorist" is essentially subjective, primarily being used in reference to "militants we oppose" by English-speaking governments and media outlets. Thus, most westerners have no qualms about labeling Al-Qaeda a "terrorist" organisation, whereas hardline Islamists might call them "freedom fighters" or something of that nature. To use an example that is currently relevant, the Syrian government has labelled the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists", but western media and governments tend to prefer the term "opposition forces". Within Wikipedia, which strives for neutrality, objective terms such as "militant" are therefore preferable to words like "terrorist" (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)).
- Hello. Is there a community consensus you can show me somewhere that says we should not use the word "terrorist" when RS do? --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:NPOV. Sources - even very reliable ones - are not necessarily, and are not required to be, neutral, but WP articles must always be neutral. Roger (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, I suggest you initiate a conversation regarding the removal of the instances of "terrorist" from the 9/11 article. I imagine that will quickly ascertain community consensus on whether the term, when used by a mass of RS, is POV or NPOV. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:NPOV. Sources - even very reliable ones - are not necessarily, and are not required to be, neutral, but WP articles must always be neutral. Roger (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
IP block exempt
editHi Dweller, Thanks for removing the sysop bit the other day. You added back rollbacker and IP-block exempt, but I'm fairly sure I won't be needing IP-block exempt, and I seem to recall that the powers that be like to give that out on an as-needed only basis. Could you remove the IP-block exempt for me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I noticed you'd had it in the past, which is why I granted it. On review, it seems to have been a test, so that was my error. Thanks for the note. --Dweller (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I understand now. I can't even recall what it was Xeno and I were testing. Anyway, thanks for the help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 11:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Declan Rudd's school days
editThe link I usually used appears to be broken, so by all means remove it if you wish. My son's girlfriend is a Canaries fan, and hails from a village between Diss and Beccles. She says she will try to find out.Bashereyre (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 11:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 11:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Active editors include bots but can subtract
editI have researched and answered your reply at User_talk:Jimbo:
- Bots are in monthly totals but can be subtracted: Bots are included as "users", but also have separate counts which can be subtracted out: among "25,377" active users, subtract "113" bots, or among "2,449" highly active editors (>100 edits), subtract "67" bots. The actual numbers, from corrected data counts, are likely 38% higher, so among "35,020" active editors, subtract "156" bots, etc. See data file: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, and search for 2nd table, under "bots per group of namespaces".
All counts in those data files (posted on 12-13 June 2012) seem to be low at about 71%-73%, so multiply by 138% to estimate the corrected counts. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
re: Too Many Crickets... :)
editHi Dweller, thanks for such a calm comment. I read your pages with interest. I read the Wiki Edit page you link about creation of featured articles, understanding that the "directions', if you will, are all about showcasing well-written articles. This does make sense, as it rewards people for all their hard work.
However, before I began to edit, I always used to wonder, "what is it about Wikipedia and Dreadnought class battleships, cricket players (often Australian), etc." Between the "on this day" "featured articles" and "did you know" sections, you really could get the impression World War Two is still going on, with short breaks for cricket! Nothing personal - I realize I'm treading on hallowed ground here, however...
Wikipedia is also a source of news and information for people. In its capacity as knowledge disseminator and entertainment site, (entertainment, or shall I say engagement, draws the viewrs who pay for the site), I think Wikipedia should give some thought to trying to showcase a variety of articles. That Wiki Edit page has nothing about content, but I really think it should. We should develop some mechanism for keeping an interesting flow of articles, even if some beautifully written pieces don't get spotlighted on the home page. Maybe something each day from a different section on rotation, like Art, Science, History, Cricket, People, Dreadnought class battle ships, Music, Biology, Environment, Cricket, etc., Sorry, I'm having a little fun and hope you are too. :) Just my two sense. cheers Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyshiverstick (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Bryan Gunn
editAccording to the page Kevin Keelan won it twice - if this is correct then Gunn is not the only goalkeeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Ding!
edit
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Goodness me, whatever next. Check article history, the SPI pushing it all over Tracy Austin, did you even know we weren't allowed to say this in front of people any more? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 11:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Usurpation
editHello, I found you on the bureaucrats list. Could you please check the usurpation page? I (and some others also) was left a message by a robot, but no bureaucrats notes. Sorry for bothering but I need to know wheather I have something to do to rename succesfully. Thank you --Mates245 (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
editCredo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
- Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Sheffield Rules
editI've seen the message, thank you for your answer. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Spencer Zwick
editI acknowledge that SZwick, as Romney's national finance chair, is not automatically a notable person. I certainly didn't step up to create an article for him today. But the NYTimes article which alerted me to him, which I cited at W. Craig Zwick, did seem to give a pretty good argument for having SZwick represented as I did on the dab page. Given the financial link between the father and other major Mormon figures, on the one hand, and the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 on the other, I thought the addition worthwhile. You accepted the other additions I made to the dab page including that one to his father. Can you see your way to a bit of leeway, here?
I also did edits at 2002 Winter Olympics and Restore Our Future from the Times article. Without trying to make Wikipedia a news account, the emerging Romney campaign and fundraising, with roots back to '94 and before that (including back to early Mormon history), seems worthy of a somewhat fuller "population" (several more names added, some with Wiki articles already, some without) and linkages in the encyclopedia.
I'll also note that finance chairs have in the past moved on into senior administration positions or "personality positions" I'd call them (or ambassadors) if their candidate wins. I considered a red link on SZwick on that basis but demurred for the time; obviously the citation would be upgradable. Doing a Wiki search for ~national finance chair, I come up with Penny Pritzker, Obama's '08 NFC, John Rakolta, one of Romney's 2008 NFCs, among other recent ones deemed notable enough for articles; and, dating myself, the one I remembered was Nixon's Maurice Stans, who became Commerce Sec'y and was indicted and acquitted on campaign fundraising charges post-Watergate.
A few thoughts. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks for your consideration. Swliv (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Spencer Zwick doesn't seem particularly notable, but if someone demonstrated his notability, he should be included. We can't do so on the basis of him potentially becoming notable, as spotlighted in WP:CRYSTAL. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Point taken. We'll see. Swliv (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Block Daft
editCan you block this Daft? extra999 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not without more evidence. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
hope ya didn't jinx it ...
editlink Ya just never know when a Kmweber is gonna sneak in. :) Chedzilla (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Happily, iIt'd need a phalanx of curmudgeons to make a significant impact on that block of green. Unhappily, there are curmudgeons aplenty on these pages, which is why we need more users to frequent RfA. Hope you've !voted! --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did (one of) the nom(s) for Mark .. got one other vote in .. still looking at the other two, but likely support both. :) Chedzilla (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you ever find yourself turning curmudgeonly: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did (one of) the nom(s) for Mark .. got one other vote in .. still looking at the other two, but likely support both. :) Chedzilla (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Your Signpost edit
editThanks much. I fear the state of the world when I'm copyediting British sports articles :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. It was brilliant. You made a drab northern team from a drab northern town, who are somewhat in decline, sound like a razzmatazz American franchise. I can't stop grinning. There's no expectation that you should have known how us weird Limeys refer to teams that play football. I can just imagine how odd we appear - after all, when we play football, we primarily use our feet! ;-) --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, as long as when I edit, I remember to use my head. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Gosh, that must hurt. I mainly use my fingers and thumbs. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, as long as when I edit, I remember to use my head. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I was not aware that a move discussion was necessary for an uncontroversial move request. After all, having the title on a family or other group of people at the singular form is plainly wrong, per "Ottomans", "Habsburgs", "Windsors", "Abbasids", etc... Constantine ✍ 12:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just happened to be watchlisting this page ... I'm not following, Constantine, but I'm not familiar with the request. The words you give above redirect to Ottoman Turks, House of Habsburg and House of Windsor. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC
The article has been where it is for a long time. I suggest you open a page move discussion. Personally, I would oppose a move to a plural term, for the same reason as why the terms Dank mentions are singular, but that wasn't the reason I declined the deletion. Speedy deletions can only be done for unambiguously uncontroversial things, and this was not unambiguous. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Replying to both, my point is that when a family etc name is formed by adding the "-id" suffix to its founder's name, the plural form is used. Here "Rawadid" means "son of Rawad", and referring to the dynasty as a whole, and not to any single member of it, it is clear that it should be in the plural. It is always either the "X-id dynasty/family/empire" or simply "the X-ids". Having the article under the singular is simply ungrammatical, and hence I thought the request would be uncontroversial. I see now it is not so obvious, and will go ahead with a move request. Constantine ✍ 13:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Our family name articles all seem to be listed as singular. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Except that "Rawadid" is not a surname that these people actually bore. It is a descriptive term deriving from their founder, hence my reference to the Habsburgs, Ottomans etc. We wouldn't list the Ottoman Empire or the Ottoman dynasty under plain "Ottoman", either. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you think of an example of a similar term where we have the article as a plural? --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Barmakids, Marwanids, Samanids, to name the most prominent. The usual form is "X-id dynasty", however. Constantine ✍ 22:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- For some reason, this phenomenon is only (to my knowledge) encountered in Islamic-related articles, even the Abbasid Caliphate was once under Abbasid. I find this extremely odd, since not only is the plural form as a collective term of reference the norm in every Western language I know of (e.g. Abbasides, Abbasiden, Αββασίδες, etc) even in the articles themselves, the plural form is mostly used, e.g. Farighunid. Constantine ✍ 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Shi'a Muslim dynasties has a ton of plurals. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's persuasive. Go for it with the RM --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you think of an example of a similar term where we have the article as a plural? --Dweller (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Except that "Rawadid" is not a surname that these people actually bore. It is a descriptive term deriving from their founder, hence my reference to the Habsburgs, Ottomans etc. We wouldn't list the Ottoman Empire or the Ottoman dynasty under plain "Ottoman", either. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Our family name articles all seem to be listed as singular. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 11:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
username change - nuttyrave
editDear Sir,
I have found your name amongst the Wikimedia Commons bureaucrats, and would like to change my username from
nuttyrave
to
donan.raven
I have already placed a similar request on the Wikimedia Commons project
Please advise on how to procede
With kind regards, signed:Nuttyrave (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Question re: page move
editThe other day, you performed my requested user page move, for which I thank you. But, I just noticed that roughly 2/3rds of my talk page archives are now redlinks. Do you have any idea why this might be the case? I can only assume that some of them simply did not get moved. Is that correct? At any rate, I am baffled. I was just about to create a new archive page, but I think I will wait 'til I hear back from you. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. See this. Your contribs went through, but, it seems, not all of your userspace. You can move them yourself? --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- If that's actually a question, my response is, "I dunno." ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- A better response might be, how can I move them when I cannot find them? I mean, quite seriously, where are the archive pages, if they did not get moved from my old page? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- See ([4]). I guess it didn't move them due to the hiccup I encountered. Sorry about that, but at least you now know where they are! --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 August 2012
edit- Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden
- Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration
- Featured content: On the road again
- Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit
- WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution
- Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship
Misha B
edit- Sorry to bother you, but I need help.
I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.
or should I go to formal mediation?
I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism and attacks maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.
DRN
Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?
Too much information and way too biased
- WP:NPOV/N is probably your best bet here. Steven Zhang ....*Which I have followed
In the mean time I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article.........Zoebuggie☺whispers 02:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Message added 21:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
East Anglia and Pride of...
editOuch, well of course amongst football fans, Col U and even Saafend are part of East Angular for pig-skin chasing reasons, but clearly geographically it's not the case. Best, unless a source can be found saying "football fans consider Essex to be part of East Anglia for the purposes of determining the Pride of Anglia" (or similar!), we leave the Essex clubs cleared out.... Good luck tomorrow by the way, big season for you guys. Like that awkward second album... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Favour...
editCan you have a butcher's at this? I'm not entirely uninvolved (and personally think IIO's crusade to be distateful) so wondered if you had a view on a way ahead... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I can't take a dispassionate view, because of my previous negative experiences of in ictu oculi. I'm also [at the tail end of being] on wikibreak. Sorry for the slow and unhelpful reponse. --Dweller (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, ok, that rules both of us out then. Ok, well hope you and yours are well, more soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 12:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Citation trolling
editCitation trolling is adding citation demands to things which are incredibly obvious / uncontroversial (eg 1+1=2[citation needed]). In this case, demanding proof that one number is bigger than another; there is no controversy at all that the Yamato's weight figures are correct, or that they are larger than those associated with any other battleship. Per the talk page I'm more dubious about most powerfully armed since the Iowa 80s conversions could carry nuclear weapons, but there's no controversy that Yamato and Musashi had the largest main battery guns of any battleship. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- On the specifics, I can't see where the article includes sourced material that is incredibly obvious and uncontroversial that proves that this ship weighed more than any other in history. Furthermore, you've agreed yourself that the claim regarding "powerfully armed" is not only unsourced but potentially untrue. The tags need to be restored or the text needs to be amended.
- On the issue of the edit summary, calling another good faith editor's work "trolling" is not pleasant and is going to land you in trouble with people who are more hot-headed than I am. It's just not a good idea, please don't do it. --Dweller (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- The weight of Yamato is not controversial. You will not find a source which does not agree with that statement, and it's so obvious few bother to say it outright. You don't need a citation for something involving simple numbers if you can verify the numbers, and any book on warships will include Yamato's weight. The only reason the cite tags were added was a POV-pushing idiot trying to deliberately misrepresent a source as saying that Yamato was "larger" than other ships (whatever that means) rather than simply heavier, and "more powerful" which is meaningless.
- As for the latter, threatening people with nebulous "trouble" is far more likely to land you in hot water with moderation than calling a spade a spade. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
editThe Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Kernock, kernock
editYou have an email from yours truly.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC notice
editYour intelligent comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/City_population_templates resonated with me and I clarified the questions. Would you care to comment again? Thanks, Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think you're heading up a blind alley. I particularly admire your pleasant attitude. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Thanks. The trouble is that you've introduced a huge lump of subjectivity." - This made me rethink my original proposal. And guess what, you're spot on again. See, what I was trying to do was avoid confusion as well as obfuscation. I still agree with your first comment, albeit restored the previous version. Because you and I both know very well that Palau, Vatican City or Tuvalu don't come to mind every-time we utter the word "nations".
That was my primary intention behind the first change (which I reverted now owing to the logicality of your second comment). Don't get depressed by the way by this because you don't know the history of this editor (and his little cabal), and should not have to go through an endless tapestry of archived pages with prolix, digressive and obfuscatory comments.He says, my RfC was "over-conditioned allusion to India" hahaha... Now, you tell me is India the only nation with global or regional economic and military influence in the world (Which I removed anyway)?? Now, if I start an RFC that includes "nation with global or regional economic and military influence", he need not bring India up. And how is his comment serving any constructive purpose other than obfuscation and digression?
Yes it's true, I wanted such a template included in India, but it was buried under comments like "such a template just won't add anything to the article", yup that's it and nothing more. (If you still want a glimpse of one of many such quagmires, see WP:DRN if you have enough time to squander) And this RFC, although based on that disgust, is far beyond India, it is about these templates in general.
I am a reasonable person, when I see Australia, Japan, Canada, etc, I particularly look for those templates to get an idea of their population. Hence, a clear-cut consensus of what the global wikipedia community wants is utterly necessary otherwise this trend of stifling reason with WP:IDON'TLIKEIT-type comments will never end, trust me! Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think what you've hit is the impact of editors instinctively feeling that there's no one-size-fits-all rule on such on a thing. Re your comments on IDON'TLIKEIT, while it's an argument to avoid in deletion debates, aesthetics do play a part in Featured Articles.
- In the specific case of India, it seems there's also a good reason to avoid using the template, because of its overwhelmingly rural population.
- You should also consider just how hard it is to get an article through WP:FAC. I strongly advise you to do so (some advice on the process here) - you'll learn a lot about Wikipedia and we'll gain a Featured Article.
- Finally, a word from the
wiseexperienced. When you hit consensus that you don't like or simply can't understand... go find something else. There's plenty here to occupy you. Endlessly rehashing the argument won't win over those who disagreed with you; it just makes you look bad. There are some articles here that make my blood boil and I'd delete them in a heartbeat if they changed the rules to make Wikipedia:Dweller's day in charge of Wikipedia a bluelink, but I've lost those arguments and I let them go. You might find this useful... I wrote it in 2008: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)- "When you hit consensus " - there was no consensus on either removing it or including it (so there is a difference). And, Yes, aesthetics matter but you know probably better than me that aesthetics do not give a free pass to the it-just-doesn't-look-cool-to-me crowd. We cannot pander to some set of editors just because they have a group. Besides, I told you this is not about India. I can personally name you at least 7-8 editors who would support this inclusion and some of them have (in the DRN and Talk:India), but for some reason they are hesitant to express their views here as of now. Maybe they have had enough of this idiocy and already thinking that this is quixotic (never going to be let implemented). Like some of the users wrote on Talk:India (and you will know that they are right in saying the following once be involved in the talks):
The "regulars" here, who are among other things zealously preserving this article's featured article status, are acting like they own it. [..] WP:BOLD says that we're all free to improve the encyclopedia as we see fit, and personally, I think the burden of proof should be on the objectors who want to remove an improvement, not the other way around. But this is probably a highly debatable point.[..] The "regulars", dedicated though they are to this article's preservation and improvement, are inevitably way too close to it to ever really know how it looks to outsiders, or what they'd really like to see or not see. [..]
what I see is a well-intentioned editor making good-faith efforts to improve an (already good) article, and a bunch of others kicking those attempts down with unthinking, knee-jerk comments like "unnecessary clutter" and "looks awful" and "absolutely no to such ugliness"
Do I think you're being too severe? Yes, absolutely. You've done nothing but criticize and mock Mrt3366, and now you're mocking me. Everything about your behavior here makes it seem as if you and a few others WP:OWN this article, and that you will suffer no edits to it by anyone else without forcing them to endure a gauntlet of "consensus building" here first, in which there will never be consensus because you will find fault forever with anything that you don't like.
— User:Ummit
- "When you hit consensus " - there was no consensus on either removing it or including it (so there is a difference). And, Yes, aesthetics matter but you know probably better than me that aesthetics do not give a free pass to the it-just-doesn't-look-cool-to-me crowd. We cannot pander to some set of editors just because they have a group. Besides, I told you this is not about India. I can personally name you at least 7-8 editors who would support this inclusion and some of them have (in the DRN and Talk:India), but for some reason they are hesitant to express their views here as of now. Maybe they have had enough of this idiocy and already thinking that this is quixotic (never going to be let implemented). Like some of the users wrote on Talk:India (and you will know that they are right in saying the following once be involved in the talks):
- "Thanks. The trouble is that you've introduced a huge lump of subjectivity." - This made me rethink my original proposal. And guess what, you're spot on again. See, what I was trying to do was avoid confusion as well as obfuscation. I still agree with your first comment, albeit restored the previous version. Because you and I both know very well that Palau, Vatican City or Tuvalu don't come to mind every-time we utter the word "nations".
I am not persuaded that there is something wrong with the template, or with including it. Similar templates exist and add useful, notable information for many country articles: United States, United Kingdom, and many developing countries such as Brazil, China, South Africa, Russia, United Arab Emirates, Thailand and Colombia. It is unpersuasive to suggest that India is mostly rural or has slums, and pictures of major cities may be misleading. It is unpersuasive because many countries such as Thailand, with rural % of population similar to India, have this template; and they should because it is a notable aspect of the subject. Slums exist in Brazil (where they are called favelas), China and 125+ other countries; slums everywhere have the same issues
— User:ApostleVonColorado- You may or may not agree with some of this (that's a different issue) but tell me first does anybody have the right to arbitrarily dictate (i.e. without any attempt of building consensus first) what should be the "protocol" pertaining to (but not limited to) how many images can be nominated on the talk page by one person and from what categories how many images should be included in an article (he talks about "over-conditions")??
I do not think he is the right person to be delivering harangues on the evils of over-conditioning. Wikipedia is not an autocracy. Pardon my acerbity if you think it's unjustified, but that is what I have received from these guys every single time. I am sorry but I cannot defer to comments like "atrociously ugly vanilla images of Indian cities. They simply can not go into this FA." Doesn't it sound awfully similar to or worse than I just don't like it. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
<sigh> Yes, there's been some bad behaviours. On both sides of the argument. But this is actually very simple: you've failed to gain consensus for a significant change to an FA, so that's the end of it. You'll need to learn how to deal with not winning an argument if you're going to stay around Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, I should be adept at dealing with not winning an argument, but if you be honest to yourself (which I think you are), you'll know that there was no argument to begin with. You know better than me what is going on. I don't particularly like losing an argument but I know how and when to defer to a respectable opinion.
Besides, did edit war over it? No.
Did I behave overly uncivilly with anybody? No, with occasional short-bursts of acerbity which is nothing compared to the reciprocation.
Did I go on a wiki-policy violation spree? no.
So what makes you think that I haven't learnt how to accept the fact that people are not always going to embrace logic over ego, while maintaining calm.What I haven't learnt — you might be thinking — is how to just let it all go. I invite you to read my comments on the "additional discussion" section.
One cannot say something is good for USA, United Kingdom, China, Italy, Japan, Canada, Brazil, etc but mysteriously its usefulness vanishes just when it comes to India. There should be consistency regarding the structuring and presentation of the information, among the articles about similar countries across wikipedia. Isn't that why there is a manual of style? So what is wrong if I ask for a little more of that?
But you didn't answer my question, does anybody have the right to arbitrarily (i.e. without any attempt of building consensus first) fiats (some of which I mentioned above)? I haven't learnt how to let it go. Don't worry, I will learn it or leave wikipedia. Because autocracy and freedom cannot co-exist. You might think I am being naive or an idealist even, but I cannot change my thinking at this very moment. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)- In total contrast to what you write, I see that you made a valiant attempt to garner consensus for a change in the article at Talk:India, and it failed. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it in total contrast to what I wrote? Did I claim that I have not tried to garner consensus? I wrote, "What I haven't learnt — you might be thinking — is how to just let it all go". Of course, I did try to get my points across. Who wouldn't? It failed indeed, albeit there were some who supported me. But is it in total contrast to what I write? I am a fair person, I try to be as fair as I can possibly be. I am sorry, but how is that in total contrast to what I write, I don't get it? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- In total contrast to what you write, I see that you made a valiant attempt to garner consensus for a change in the article at Talk:India, and it failed. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, I should be adept at dealing with not winning an argument, but if you be honest to yourself (which I think you are), you'll know that there was no argument to begin with. You know better than me what is going on. I don't particularly like losing an argument but I know how and when to defer to a respectable opinion.
Talkback
edit Message added 20:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC) 20:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 12:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Note
editSincere apology if I offended, as my goal was to grab the attention of the community and get it to recognize that they were collectively overreacting (imo), not to point fingers or pass judgement on any individual. We all fall short of the target sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- And thank you for your participation in my review. I've replied there as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
WHOIS info
editHi Dweller. Moved over here as my talkpage is infested with socks at the moment. My personal opinion, and it seems to be shared by many, is that if an individual posts as an IP, the information provided by Info Sniper or any of the other links on the IP template is public information. What would be the point of oversighting it - the information is still accessible via the IP template on the IP userpage, and any editor can go and look at it (unless you're me at work - our net filterware blocks whatismyipaddress.com but allows me to access Info Sniper. Go figure). Homer assumed that TAG was part of ATT, that the chap worked for TAG, that he was editing in work time, and that if he rang the supervisor the guy would be disciplined. That's a lot of assumptions that seem to have failed at first base, and that's what would be appropriate to oversight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Given my spectacular display of stupidity at BN this evening, I'll leave responding to this properly until I'm next onwiki. :-) I'll drop you a line to let you know - but it won't be one of those talkback templates. In the meantime, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Admin score
editFollowing up on the RfA thread from last week, I'm sending a message out to a few people who seemed to have positive and/or constructive comments on the admin score tool. I created a subpage where editors could indicate their own preferences for the relative importance of various criteria, but I didn't get as much input on it as I expected. If you have time, would you consider taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Admin scoring workshop and adding your input? The most important section is the top section ("Relative importance"). If you have a minute, add a row to that table. If you have a few more minutes, consider adding input to the more specific tables on the rest of the page. Thanks for your help. -Scottywong| confess _ 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Scotty. Apologies for late reply. I think your tool can be enhanced, but I think even at its best it would still be strongly misleading. We've all seen RfAs of candidates that don't fit the usual parameters that we think should pass, because our human ability to juggle factors is more sensitive than that of a tool, especially our assessment of character. Even the kneejerk opposing on editcount bothers me - some editors, particularly content contributors, clearly lavish more time, skill and thought on 1 edit than others do on 30 or 40 tool-assisted mouseclicks. I like that you're trying to add something and your expertise is quite astounding, but I think it's a wrong avenue. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Old FA audit
editAre you looking for something like Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2007? BencherliteTalk 08:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but no. I need to overlay articles that are a) currently Featured b) passed FAC in 2008 or older and, critically, c) haven't yet appeared on Main Page. There's also a d) haven't undergone FARC since 2008. I don't think there's an easy way to find that, other than manually. I do think that adding the date of pass to the projectspace list of articles yet to appear on Main Page would be a good idea, but for now, I'll do it all in userspace, especially so as I can also include my own personal ratings of the ones I'm looking for, however many that turns out to be. So far, very few, but that might just be because the sample size is currently small - the bulk of the many fungi FAs may just have been written fairly recently! --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well WP:FA2007, WP:FA2006 etc are kept up to date by a bot and tell you which articles are still featured and which have been on the main page; it won't tell you whether they've been kept at FAR but I would have thought that those pages would give you a starting point for your audit. If you want to do it by topic, though, that'll be the hard way... BencherliteTalk 08:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right! I didn't notice that... clearly still half-asleep. Hmm. --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well WP:FA2007, WP:FA2006 etc are kept up to date by a bot and tell you which articles are still featured and which have been on the main page; it won't tell you whether they've been kept at FAR but I would have thought that those pages would give you a starting point for your audit. If you want to do it by topic, though, that'll be the hard way... BencherliteTalk 08:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Bencherlite. I wonder if I shouldn't just overlay my userspace page with c+p of those pages and go from there? --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cool! If you have AWB and are somewhat experienced with it, you could do some set theory too. --Rschen7754 09:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not very techy, I'm afraid. I did once install AWB, years ago, but couldn't get on with it. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- The main idea would be to get two pages of wikitext, strip out all the extra links, use AWB to generate two text files, and use a filter to do a union or intersect operation. If you're not too familiar with it though, I suppose it might be cumbersome. --Rschen7754 09:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand each and every one of the words you use, but when you put them together like that, it might as well be Japanese. :-) --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- The main idea would be to get two pages of wikitext, strip out all the extra links, use AWB to generate two text files, and use a filter to do a union or intersect operation. If you're not too familiar with it though, I suppose it might be cumbersome. --Rschen7754 09:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not very techy, I'm afraid. I did once install AWB, years ago, but couldn't get on with it. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, taking WP:FA2006 as an example, I cut and pasted the displayed page contents (not the wikimarkup) into Excel, removed extraneous text, then removed the ones that had been on the main page by sorting and deleting, then removed FFAs, and saved the result as a text file. I then used the list comparer function of AWB to compare that list with the contents of Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed), I get these which have not been through FARC at all:
and this smaller list of current FAs that have not been TFA but which have been kept at FARC:
Extended content
|
|---|
but another check might be wise. BencherliteTalk 09:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. That would have taken me ages. Any chance you can add it to the userspace page in a similar format to what I've done for 2004 and 2005? --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Right, back to work... BencherliteTalk 09:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't think of including the FAR cats in the automation. Good idea. --Rschen7754 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have good ideas sometimes... and in fact this led me to find a bug in T:AH now fixed by someone clever, so it's a win-win situation. BencherliteTalk 12:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't think of including the FAR cats in the automation. Good idea. --Rschen7754 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've done one (admittedly not very difficult as I had opposed it at TFAR!) – I'll try and do others as time permits. Have you called for volunteers at WT:TFAR? It might be a useful exercise for those who like hunting down unnominated and interesting FAs. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll do that. Incidentally, I can't see which one you've done - other than removing yesterday's TFA! --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Derry City F.C. BencherliteTalk 14:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, yes, I missed that. Help yourself to more, especially if you like hurricanes. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Derry City F.C. BencherliteTalk 14:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Forthcoming
editIt surprises me that there is someone who considers this important. Well done. Deryck C. 09:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Ranji
editYour copyedit of the lead of Ranji popped up on my watchlist, and I noticed your note to TRM about taking Ranji to FA. Good stuff! I began work on this a while ago before taking a break, and it has been on my to-do list for a long time. The problem with Ranji is that it needs to be rather more academic than other cricketer FAs to be truly comprehensive. I've basically gutted the (truly excellent) Simon Wilde biography and that is in the article already. I've already got some bits from the Ross book, but it is basically a re-hash of old Ranji hagiographies. As you can probably see, it is currently waaaaaay too detailed, and my next job was going to be a trim and possibly a fork of Ranji's cricket career. But there are two other major books, the Migrant Races book in the further reading section, and Batting for the Empire by Mario Rodrigues. I have both of these books; the first is a very academic study and survey of writing on Ranji, the second concentrates on his "political" career. Both are quite heavy going and are on my to-finish list, but I think they are essential to include for this article to be FA. It also needs a style-technique section and, rarely for a cricket article, a "historiography" section given the rapidly evolving views on Ranji in cricket writing. I would be more than happy to help out on this one if you fancy a fairly long project, but there are one or two other things on my list first, including Hobbs and MacLaren. If not, fair enough and feel free to plough on and hammer the mess in which I left the article into some sort of shape. Either way, I can certainly help on images as I have a few which come from Beldam's Great batsmen and their methods, and I can get some images of Gilling, where he lived for a time, next time I am out that way.
Related to your main page comments, I think there is plenty of mileage in cricketers but the state of articles on non-English and non-Australian cricketers is woeful, and I regularly despair over the West Indian articles. If you ever feel like working on Viv Richards, Sobers, Marshall or anyone else, please ping me. Sorry for the long, rambling message! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I was wondering who'd gutted Wilde - hadn't yet got to the article history. I picked Ranji as an Indian. I'd be interested in helping on Marshall; with some FA experience behind me I now prefer FAs biogs to be of dead people, as they have less of a habit of doing new and interesting things. Let's see how I get on with knocking Ranji into shape - I'm spending quite a lot of time on my "old FA audit" (see my recent contribs) so it'll need to fit in around that. I'm not necessarily convinced that every major study on a figure needs to be included in their biog (imagine if it was someone like Caesar or Alexander the Great, who've had countless biogs in multiple languages) especially when you have included some recent all-round work like Wilde's, but we'll see how it goes. Maybe once the pruning you refer to above is done you'll be more comfortable? --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree to some extent, and I think the Rodrigues book covers a lot of the ground covered by Wilde. The Migrant Races book is more essential as it covers some good stuff like attitude to race in Victorian times, and a nice little summary of some obscure papers along the lines of "Ranji as a symbol of X". My only word of caution for taking this to FA would be that more recent FACs tend to ask for a very wide-ranging survey of literature, and I have seen opposes when there is not a variety of sources. As good as Wilde is, I think a little more would be needed. I may have a quick look through the books in the next week or two, and I can send you scans of anything useful if that helps. And, regarding your FA audit, if I can help by looking at your old cricket FAs, as I noticed you mention somewhere or other, I would be more than glad to help. I've been thinking that one or two older cricket FAs (not necessarily yours, which look good even by today's higher standards) may need looking at soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll see what other source material I can add to Ranji - I also like seeing a multiplicity of sources. If you'd review the cricket FACs I worked on, that'd be great. It turns out there are only two, because I've been fortunate enough to see a few feature on Main Page. Anyway, they're Paul Collingwood and to a lesser extent Arthur Morris - both on my list here. If you wanted to do the football ones, there's Ipswich Town F.C., History of Ipswich Town F.C. and History of Norwich City F.C. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree to some extent, and I think the Rodrigues book covers a lot of the ground covered by Wilde. The Migrant Races book is more essential as it covers some good stuff like attitude to race in Victorian times, and a nice little summary of some obscure papers along the lines of "Ranji as a symbol of X". My only word of caution for taking this to FA would be that more recent FACs tend to ask for a very wide-ranging survey of literature, and I have seen opposes when there is not a variety of sources. As good as Wilde is, I think a little more would be needed. I may have a quick look through the books in the next week or two, and I can send you scans of anything useful if that helps. And, regarding your FA audit, if I can help by looking at your old cricket FAs, as I noticed you mention somewhere or other, I would be more than glad to help. I've been thinking that one or two older cricket FAs (not necessarily yours, which look good even by today's higher standards) may need looking at soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is exactly copies Chichen Itza*Site description*Architectural groups*Other structures*Caves of Balankanche:
- Approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) south east of the Chichen Itza archaeological zone are a network of sacred caves known as Balankanche (Spanish: Gruta de Balankanche), Balamka'anche' in Yucatec Maya). In the caves, a large selection of ancient pottery and idols may be seen still in the positions where they were left in pre-Columbian times. The location of the cave has been well known in modern times. Edward Thompson and Alfred Tozzer visited it in 1905. A.S. Pearse and a team of biologists explored the cave in 1932 and 1936. E. Wyllys Andrews IV also explored the cave in the 1930s. Edwin Shook and R.E. Smith explored the cave on behalf of the Carnegie Institution in 1954, and dug several trenches to recover potsherds and other artifacts. Shook determined that the cave had been inhabited over a long period, at least from the Preclassic to the post-conquest era.[61]. On 15 September 1959, José Humberto Gómez, a local guide, discovered a false wall in the cave. Behind it he found an extended network of caves with significant quantities of undisturbed archaeological remains, including pottery and stone-carved censers, stone implements and jewelry. INAH converted the cave into an underground museum, and the objects after being catalogued were returned to their original place so visitors can see them in situ.[62]
Strannik27 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time.
Ripley
editNo worries, I've added a ref and some categories and cleaned up as well. Could do with an infobox but I don't have time at the mo - but also worth mentioning that specific date of death not confirmed by that website. GiantSnowman 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Abortion
editThanks for trying here. It seems the editor in question takes an odd kind of pride in deliberately upsetting others and using serious medical procedures like abortion as a way of a making a point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the email
editNo - these edits were not from me. I have corrected some of them including tidying up the references, but otherwise, they have nothing to do with me. Cheers. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, great, thanks for the reply. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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) 14:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
edit
|
For creating Yom tov sheni shel galuyot. I was surprised to see we didn't already have an article on it, so thanks for taking the initiative! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
JSTOR
editHi there. Good news: you're up next for a free JSTOR account, since you signed up Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling
wikimedia.org) with...
- the subject line "JSTOR"
- your English Wikipedia username
- your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so ASAP or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. We're waiting to deliver access to everyone until we have the 100 recipients collected, so the sooner you reply the quicker everyone can start using JSTOR.
Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Another gentle *poke*. Just a last few people and everyone can start getting access. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Bryan Gunn
editCan I nominate Bryan Gunn for FA, or are you still working on it?--Lucky102 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's already a featured article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oops! I meant the main page, silly me!--Lucky102 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I'd like to wait for 22 December 2013, just over a year from now, when the great man will be 50. --Dweller (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. --Lucky102 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
KRUB / RKUB
editKerub (כְּרוּב) and Rekub (רְכוּב) are indeed anagrams. How is this disputable ?? Rakab is also "anagrammatic" (ie lacking only one letter) and Merkabah is clearly similar. It doesn't have to be a perfect anagram to make poetical sense. Nevertheless, KRUB and RKUB are (perfect) anagrams. Ben Ammi (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The words you're trying to match are Kruv and Merkava. But by far the bigger issue is that you are trying to match them. Wikipedia is not a place for posting your original research. We have a policy about it: WP:NOR. --Dweller (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Unintelligible. RKUB and KRUB are anagrams, and clearly related to the context: "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." (Psalm 18:20) "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." (2 Sam 22:11) notice it's plural Cherubim, not singular, as you incorrectly stated.(http://biblez.com/search.php?q=rode+upon+cherubim) Even if this were not the case, and it is, but even if, then KRUB and RKUB are still anagrams and contextually related to riding, which bears being mentioned. Ben Ammi (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- This was your original edit. Besides, you're arguing the very much minor point. Whether it is or isn't a good anagram, the main point is do not include OR in Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
18:20 doesn't mention cherubs. 18:11 reads:
וַיִּרְכַּב עַל כְּרוּב וַיָּעֹף וַיֵּדֶא עַל כַּנְפֵי רוּחַ That's singular KRV. Your bible text is inaccurate. Similarly, II Samuel 22:11 is also singular: וַיִּרְכַּב עַל כְּרוּב וַיָּעֹף וַיֵּרָא עַל כַּנְפֵי רוּחַ You're missing a mem on both occasions. If the word had been plural, it would have an extra yod not needed in merkava. --Dweller (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Mediation or advice
edit1) I haven't cleaned up my own talk page yet, and will ask for help to do this from someone else (how to archive). 2) I was a student at UEA (The University of East Anglia) and read Comparative Literature and Sociolinguistics there (does that count for anything?) 3) I have contacted Sjö (it means sea in Swedish) and there is a thread on his talk page. He was a Swedish admin who suggested I be blocked there. Permanently. It could not work anyway. I was astounded that all the Jewish articles were written through a Christian filter, and was editing the Swedish and English artlicles on Ritual Slaughter for a long time. 4) Now there is a thread on Sjö's Talk Page the final paragraphs of which are rotating on the display - I'm not sure why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RPSM (talk • contribs)
- This reads like it's a reply to me, but I've not contacted you. Have you mistaken me for someone else (see the box at the top of this page)? --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous IP editor you blocked is at it again
editOn 5 November 2012 you blocked user talk:86.26.248.185 with an expiry time of 1 month (Vandalism-only account: and WP:BLP violation) here. He was also guilty of 3RR. The editor is at it again. He has vandalised the University of Leeds page diff and Skyfall (song) diff. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Your message
editThank 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
editI'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! BencherliteTalk 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. BencherliteTalk 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, BencherliteTalk 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
editHi 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
editWe 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 Wikipedia 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
editI'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
edit
|
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
editPlease 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
editI 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)