User talk:Dweller/Archive15

Clearances

Pls see them - there are a few newies! But not newbies... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi back

... and that was the intent!

re: You might want to add the comments you mentioned to me to the page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 3 --Dweller 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! // FrankB 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I didn't mean to imply you did that on purpose - as you said, in such a long RFA, individual objections are hard to miss. But I don't feel comfortable supporting his adminship nomination because I see no evidence that he's truly improved. Yours, >Radiant< 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I worded that overly harshly the first time 'round; I've amended my words. >Radiant< 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: The Transhumanist RfA

I don't see exactly where he or you state the answer. Could you direct me directly to the thing you're referring to? I'm not thinking straight. :P Jack?! 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, it's no problem at all. I see those diffs now. I will be changing to support per this conversation, but I still would recommend mentioning his previous conflicts more full on, as they don't seem to be mentioned, but they are acknowledged. Jack?! 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll be sticking to neutral. See the reason I give. Jack?! 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template warnings

I always use Twinkle or Friendly for my warnings, anyway, so it's absolutely easy-peasy!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another request for clearance.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humanist

Dweller, Sorry to have alarmed you. All will become clear. Please bear with me. By tomorrow this time. Dloh cierekim 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mail

cool. Sorry for upsetting so many people. Dloh cierekim 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) And now, you have or will mail. :) Dloh cierekim 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dloh cierekim 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

I'll put you back, then, I simply didn't get it earlier. I had some heavy sweeping to do on that page. >Radiant< 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Your House 1

Thanks for that. Although you have stated that you don't believe the article is near FA quality, I would prefer it if you did look over the rest of the article, and how it could be improved. No matter what, you have been a big help in helping me improve the article. Dav nel 03 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, never seen that! And, believe it not I've noticed one step that I've not followed! Maybe this! Meh. If the article doesn't pass, I'll head there. I definitely won't stop the FAC now because there might still be other users wanting to get their opinion in. I'll let it run its course. I will possibly ask a WP:PW member to copy-edit it for me if it doesn't pass. Thanks! Dav nel 03 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. PR's do tend to get neglected, and with it being a wrestling article its likely to get neglected ever more with the bad publicity on it lately. And I think anyone would go "Eh!" the first-time they look t an article they don't know - I've done it plenty of times before. What I tend to do is read the article once, then try and read it back two or three times so you can try and get a clear aspect of what its telling you. At that point you should notice what parts stand out, and you should as you read it back notice errors or things you don't understand in the article. Dav nel 03 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind if I chip in at the FAC? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! :) Dav nel 03 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response

I responded on my talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello

Well, I for one liked your user page... and mourn its sad departure from this world. --Dweller (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Halterman, User:Swatjester – Gurch 18:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission!

I've requested a little more... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, ArbCom, etc.

I'm not upset with your decision at all, I'd just encourage you to examine the vindictive records of some of the current arbiters alongside the record of Giano's occasional "take no prisoners" approach. I'd stand his record up against Bauder's or UC's any day of the week. Best regards, Mr Which ^??? 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Net - Delete Please?

Hi, I was wondering if you'd delete X-Net for me. If you take a look at the history, you'll see that the last edit to the article was to nominate it for speedy, last May. Seems that somehow it got nominated without the catagory being added, so it slipped the net. The reason it was nominated seems sound, but, more to the point, it's remained uncontested for around seven months. I reckon that's pleanty of time for someone to have contested it if they were going to :P. Cheers, _TheIslander 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes

I don't know if the dislocation is incorrect, but the reason given for Barnes' leaving the military in Smith's biography was the trade skills and no mention was made of the shoulder dislocation at all. To my mind, the trade skills seems more likely and the two are not really compatible. It is safe to say that Sid was not the military type and was looking for reasons to return to civillian life. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Replied - I think you may have misunderstood the situation, though.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine mentoring - "I too live in the UK"

I'd have thought Porcupine could have guessed you live in the UK - there can't be many overseas supporters of the Canaries ☺ (declaration: as a Magpie I obviously know bog-all about football, but can we have Glenn Roeder back, please Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 10:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Pity he's not just on loan. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powerplay golf etc

Hey, no, didn't get your mail because I'm not in work today. Will be tomorrow though. In the meantime I'll do a bit of work on your article, and in doing so I'll be able to get an opinion at the AFD, although right now it looks pretty obviously like a keeper... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robson's award, yes, awesome. I picked it up yesterday on the BBC website so it's already in the article. Did you see him? Such a shame to see his physical state but a great speech nonetheless. What a bloody hero. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my butting in but agreed 100%. I unaccountably got something in my eye watching that. Good of Sir Fergie to present it as well. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porcupine

As I see you are mentoring Porcupine you can tell him that I don't appreciate being put on his special watchlist [1] for a edit disagreement on Sound Of Drums as I discovered when I accidentally clicked his contrib tab instead of his talk page and noticed User:Porcupine/Watchlist (Other users) as his first edit after I had reverted the Sound of Drums a second time.

I admit I have had a slight run in with Porcupine before but that was last September [2] .Garda40 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this on my talkpage.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew W Scott (gambling expert)

Hi there. You wrote to me saying the following: "Hello. I have many concerns about this article. Please take note of the tags I'm about to place on it. In the meantime, welcome".

First of all let me say I'm mildly annoyed at having my work changed, but I can also say I am totally new to editing on Wikipedia (although I have used it many time). So I freely admit I don't really understand the rules. So if you can help me to get this article in the within the "rules", whatever they are, I'd appreciate it.

Should I be posting this here or on the talk page of the actual article?

Here are my comments about the points you've made:

1. Firstly, about neutrality. I admit I know him, but I tried to write the article in the neutral tone you'd expect of an encyclopedia. I haven't removed the neutrality tag you inserted, because it says not to until the dispute is resolved. So I'm trying to resolve the dispute :) I have thoroughly read the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page, and have changed the title of the article back to refer to him as "gambling expert" rather than "gambler", since you just used the POV tag and not the POV-title tag. Scott has been accepted by the Courts in Australia as an expert witness, writes on gambling matters in the media, and also appears in the media as a gambling expert. I think that's good enough to refer to him as a "gambling expert". It's not just my POV, there are many independent 3rd parties that clearly accept him as an expert. Let me know if you have a dissenting opinion on that.
I also note that on the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page it says: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." I note that you haven't made any such note. Can you please tell me why you think the article is not NPOV? Now that I have expanded and somewhat re-written the article, do you still dispute the neutrality of the article?

2. About Andrew Scott's notability, he's pretty bloody notable! In fact I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about him, which is why I decided to write one. He's been on national television in Australia many times, and gets trotted out by the current affairs shows whenever they have a story on gambling, there's been numerous magazine articles and newspaper stories about him. Have a look at this page: http://www.blackjack-masters.com/printmedia.php which shows photographic evidence of 22 separate print media appearances in Australia and New Zealand. I personally know that is just the tip of the iceberg. I've also cited a newspaper article that both establishes his credibility and shows that casinos don't like him. He's probably the most well-known advantage play gambler in Australia.

3. About renaming the page from "Andrew W Scott (gambling expert)" to "Andrew W Scott (gambler)", I find that particularly annoying. Mr Scott is more than a mere "gambler". Most gamblers lose, Mr Scott wins and has taught thousands of others to win. He's been involved with gambling for 21 years, and not just as a gambler. In fact I happen to know there was once a period of more than a year that he didn't place a single bet, but ran his school mentoring other advanatage players and appearing in the media discussing gambling. So does that make him a gambler or a gambling expert? I think a gambling expert. He has been accepted by courts in Australia to appear as an expert witness on issues of gambling. He is a the Gambling Correspondent for Crikey, Australia's largest independent online media outlet. He's written gambling articles for MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19839900/, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19801517/, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19795871/. In fact, he does not consider himself a gambler, he considers himself a "professional blackjack player" which actually doesn't really involve gambling. The reason I chose the expression "gambling expert" is that the average person understands casino play as gambling, without making a distinction between losing play and advantage play. If you are unaware of the whole culture of winning gamblers, have a look at this page: Advantage gambling

4. About asking me for a citation for him getting the highest mark in Tasmania for Accounting, how the hell do I prove that? I read it once. But it would be pretty embarrassing to ask the guy for proof as if I didn't believe it!

5. About the rumors that he's won more than $15m in over 100 casinos - he freely admits he's played in more than 100 casinos, but is cagey about the exact amount that he's won. I thought I covered it by saying "it's rumored". Do I have to prove there's a rumor??

6. About the book he's allegedly writing, you're saying I need a citation that a rumor exists that he's writing a book? How on earth can I do that? Do I need to prove he's "yet to officially acknowledge this"??

7. I have deleted the tag at the top about not having references (because the article now does).

8. I carefully read the instructions in the tag about notability. It said "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability". I believe I've now done this, so have removed the tag. Feel free to re-insert it if you think I've yet to establish Scott's notability.

Anyway, sorry if the tone of this was a little argumentative, it's just a little demoralizing to post something that you thought was pretty good as your first article and have someone come along and find all these faults with it :( Jlp35 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at your talk page. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your response:

You wrote:

Hi. Sorry it's taken me some time to reply... You made a lot of points and I want to respond fully.

Much of what you asked is covered in the links I posted above in your welcome message, but I'll assume you've not had a chance to read it yet, or you're overwhelmed by quite how much there is to learn when you first start out at Wikipedia. We're quite a formal community and it's a little offputting to a newbie, but bear with it.

OK, into the responses. I'm going to break it down point by point. They won't fit with your numbering (sorry) but never mind.

I'm mildly annoyed at having my work changed, One of the key points about Wikipedia is that no-one "owns" any article. (We have a policy called WP:OWN). When you submit changes to the encyclopedia, it says below the "Save page" button " If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Wise words. Annoying huh? Think how annoying it must be for expert physicists (or whatever) who contribute here and have their words amended by non-experts. However, over time, the articles improve. Changes made to your work have already made the article far more fitting for an encyclopedia... sorry, I know it's annoying.
You can post to my talk page or the article talk page. It's appropriate to keep this between our "user talk" pages, as at the moment, it's really just a two-way. If we were seeking general consensus or looking for others to join in, we'd take it to the article talk page.
Neutrality. I removed in my initial edits unsourced claims regarding the subject that (because you did not source them) were written as your subjective opinion. Subjective opinions of the editors are not allowed (I see you found WP:NPOV). For example, "expert gambler" and "one of the world's most successful high stakes gamblers". A good rule when making claims in Wikipedia is the "Says who?" rule. Fine to say he was a professional gambler, not so fine, without back-up, to call him "expert" or "one of the world's most successful". To give an analogy, I might believe that Adam Gilchrist's occasional forays into bowling makes him one of the finest bowlers in cricket history (obviously, I don't... bear with me) but my opinion's not worth a jot. If however, Richie Benaud said so in a book he wrote, even if I think it's a crackpot claim, the claim is worthy of being inserted, as it's come from a reliable source that's verifiable.
POV article titles are an absolute no-no and it's not necessary. That's why I moved it and when you removed it, someone else moved it back again. Please leave it where it is now.
I didn't leave a note, because what I did was to request citations for the remaining claims. Properly cited, those claims are not POV. Uncited, they are. It was a shorthand for dealing with many POV problems that I didn't have time to deal with longhand.
Notability needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. The article needs to explain that he is notable. Notability is determined in Wikipedia by "multiple, non-trivial" references to the subject in reliable sources. Some of the information you placed on my talk page would help towards that - it is always better to include this in a new article from the start.
Why isn't the article simply called Andrew W Scott?
The Accountancy claim must be demonstrable or removed. As simple as that. And "because he told me" won't cut the mustard either, I'm afraid.
Similarly for the book. On future things that have yet to take place, see also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
No worries about your tone... you've had a frustrating experience. It takes a while to get used to Wikipedia.
Finally, let me say that although your first encounter with editing may have been rather frustrating, for many newbies it ends with the rather less satisfactory experience of a badly formed advert-y biog article being rather summarily speedy deleted... so consider yourself a success! It looks like the article is here to stay... just watch it improve. Thanks for joining us... feel free to get stuck into editing any of the other 2 million or so articles! And if I can be of any further help, please do drop me a line. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts. I'll stick with your numbering.

Understood.
Will do.
Ok, using the "says who?" rule you mentioned, I'll tell you says this guy is an expert gambler: 1. Australian Courts 2. Many Australian TV shows included respected current affairs shows like Four Corners. 3. MSNBC. 4. Crikey (who appointed him their official gambling correspondent). To be established as an expert witness by a Court is a pretty tough thing requiring cross-examination of the expert status claim, etc. He's been appearing on TV shows for 13 years with titles like "gambling expert" and "gambling authority" under his name. All this is verifiable.
Actually what happened is I tried to change it back, and did it by cut and paste thus losing the history. I didn't realise that was a no-no. But then when I read some more and I realised I'd done the wrong thing, I put it on a page requesting it to be fixed up.
I put a note in about a ZKK produced documentary where the claim was made. This doco was shown in the UK, Australia, the US, South Africa and Taiwan (that I know of), and probably a stack of other places I don't know of.
Ok.
Actually, that's good, and now it is. Originally I was going to just call it Andrew Scott, hence the need for the disambiguation. I'm happy with it just being Andrew W Scott. The 'W' solves the problem completely.
I removed it. No big deal.
Cool. I'll wait for it to come out (if it does).
Thanks.
Great, thanks for the help. I may well get stuck into some other articles, but I think I want to get this one right first!

So as far as I can see, the only outstanding issue is the neutrality dispute tag. I don't want to remove it until you implicitly tell me you agree. In fact, even better if you remove it :) Do you still dispute the neutrality?

Jlp35 (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POW!

<boink>mail</boink>... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you put a {{npov}} tag, make sure you read the rubrick... ("Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)) ... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absence...

Well, technically I don't leave until first thing tomorrow but I'll be off-wiki around 5pm tonight for the foreseeable.... don't feel bad... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garda40

Yes.Thanks for the quick response and Porcupine's response about it .Garda40 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that subject, I've made a new mentoring request. I'd just like to say, on the record, I'm disappointed Garda didn't thank me for acquiescing to his request without debate: he remained very curt to me throughout the entire incident.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom non-vote

Hi, we crossed supporting paths for your nom of TT recently, which impressed me. I hope I was able to help a little for the reading of it next time, if nothing else.
I noticed your Giano II non-vote statement of "moral support". If I read you correctly, your views are not significantly different from mine, or indeed, from many of the voted opposes. I hope you will be interested that I have provided in my vote #296, a public logic enabling uncertain opposes/others to switch to "some message only". (Please reply here if desired) Milo 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is your comment at the vote page:

Support as message compromise The "list" here has likeable, reasonable, respected, and/or powerful users on both sides, so uncertain opposes/others are now free to switch and support Giano as some message only. Per references, all but certainly he will not be appointed, so his Arbcom abilities simply don't matter. [index.php?title=User:Milomedes&action=edit Milo] 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that because a) there are lots of lovely people supporting and b) Giano won't be elected anyway, I should switch to support. I assume I've misunderstood you, because this is really insulting. I care about my vote and, as I said, thought very hard about it. I couldn't care a jot if 1,000,000 users were supporting or opposing for that matter - what difference does that make to my own carefully considered opinion? Furthermore, voting in a certain way because the result is seemingly inevitable undermines the whole basis of voting. And finally, in a vote to determine who should be a member of Arbcom, to say "his Arbcom abilities simply don't matter" insults Arbcom and Giano. Really, it's been a struggle to remain civil in this answer and I sincerely hope I've not overstepped the mark, especially as there's a tiny possibility that, as I said, I might have misunderstood. Please reassure me that I've completely misunderstood you... I'll breathe a huge sigh of relief. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not uncertain ("uncertain opposes/others"), therefore the vote page comment was not directed to you, so please disregard it. You didn't comment on my actual bolded vote ("Support as message compromise"), so I suppose that you did misunderstand my point about available "some message only" voting for those uncertain. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes and berkiness

It happens! I remember on another article claiming Bradman made his 334 at Lord's and feeling quite silly for a while when a friendly reveiewer gently corrected me on something that I did know and still got wrong. I have added some more on Barnes's wife and Scotland on the talk page. The family went to Scotland when he went to England, stayed there when he returned for the 1946-47 series and stayed in Scotland while the 1948 tour took place. Anyway, it might not be late there, but it is here and I had best go and get some sleep. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bus stop

The edit protection on the above user's talk page is due to be lifted today. Not a prospect which inspires anyone with a lot of joy, I know, but thought it might be worth a reminder. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hey, early evening in Bangkok, all good besides a touch too much sun and Singha beer. Anyway, I did a stoopid thing with my email so I'll try and let you know in the near future. It's all about revealing a bit too much thanks to an Out of Office thing. Anyway, I'll try to let you know. Other than that, all is good. It seems Ipswich won again and your boys got a creditable draw. Hurrah. Anyway, more when I get a bit of bandwidth. (Note, it was definitely me that did the one off revert on NCFC the other night. That's using wi-fi in BKK with an iPod Touch. Techno or what?!) The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in Laos now iwth the worlds wort keyboad. hope all is still wle\ll wqith you, not trustin yhis for admin login yet... just keep eyes peeled for any "outing" of me from random IPs, a lot to ask I know. Anyway, more wem i can find (a)0 a keybnoard that works an (b) a more secvure lgoing or login or whatever... Lots of Beer Lao to you, The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, better keyboard, still same amount of beer lao in system. Anyway, thanks for your message, glad the wiki hasn't disintegrated while i've been gone!! I've checked in at the MfD (as I'm sure you'll read), thanks for the pointer. I'd give it max two more weeks and then we'll blow it away, as long as you can warn the editor? Cheers. Anyway, it's still too hot to think, around mid 30s and all still good. More soon, from our next location, Vang Vieng. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hi. Was there discussion somewhere about this edit? ([3]) Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but at the time I cleaned up Invincible, all the entries on the page The Invincibles were also on the former page, so I redirected to avoid duplication. Also, at the time (3 long months ago), I was being bolder in my dab page cleanups than I am now. If you'd like to see The Invincibles restored, with a See also to it on the Invincible page, I have no problem with that. I'll even take care of it myself, if you'd like.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC) [original & reply copied from my Talk page][reply]

Done. I also thought it made sense to change the redirect Invincibles (plural noun) to point to The Invincibles (plural noun) rather than Invincible (adjective, in most uses). Regards, --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Sid

I know a bit. I'll have a squiz later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Looks in better shape than Marcus Trescothick or Arthur Morris did when they were at FAC. Should get through with some more tweaking. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Loxton

I added a bit to Loxton over a few days in a rather mechanical way: all taken from the various Wisdens I have around me while suffering from flu. It could do with a read-through and a liven-up and there are patently some missing sections about his Australian football career, his political career, and his role in cricket admin. More on his personality would also be good. But I hope there's now a start. Johnlp (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll probably leave Miller to those who know more about him. My next one might well be McCool, who I saw play for Somerset. I'm also gently doing the county games in the main article: turning the headings around to give the scores in them and linking the other players referenced. I'm minded to change all the references at the ends of these short sections to take people to the CricketArchive scorecards, rather than to a book. Does that sound sensible to you? Johnlp (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've done none of that. I had fun writing the article on the ship. An important part of the team, you'll agree! Johnlp (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not shy. Just lazy. Will do later. Johnlp (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnlp (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Muscat

I'm not really sure what MOS is, but the reason why I changed it was to keep consistent with the other A-league profile pages. eg. Craig Moore, Danny Tiatto or John Aloisi

So I'm guessing that it's fine? Blackjanedavey (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive...

Hey, despite a crappy four and a half hour bus journey I'm still alive and enjoying my trip. First signs of a cloud today (makes ya sick?) so I'm off to float down the Nam Song on an inner tube while I sip beer. Hope you're ok and all is well in your world. More soon. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Happy "time of the year" to you. In Luang Prabang wher ethe kyboards are certainly no better. Hope you're having a good day, it's early and I don't expect you're online or will be for a few days but nonetheless I wanted to say have a good day. Lots of wikilove, TRM etc etc... ! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Actually, there are some clouds (what are those white puffy things in the sky?) so we're taking the chance to get in touch with folks and all that home and abroad in the worlds's best "ultra fast" internet cafe. Hmm. Anyway, it's four o'clock and I'm ready for a beer or something. Hope you and your's have a great day/week/etc. I'm off to scrub elephants in a couple of days, can't wait. Just hope they dont't go ape and trample me. So if nothing before New Year then assume I'm flat as a pancake (which is probably preferable to my current state of slightly fat and overdone on the Beer Lao!). Anyway, thanks for posting the first ever message to my on tour account, I'll be in touch. As always, my best to you... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're editing today and asking me about the Group of Sleep? Surely that's every group England get drawn into? Dunno, sounds like OR to me, but since I'm getting about 1Kbp/s down I can't do a great deal of research! Good luck with it either way! I'm off for a few days now, take care, keep me in touch with life, have a good time. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

Re: Thrice

Thanks a bunch man. I'll get to it asap!

--Pbroks13 07:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rugby league in England=

I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS?GordyB (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix-wiki

Need your advice...

Please see User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Coaching/Phoenix-wiki#Ready or not?.

The Transhumanist 03:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your reply to his coaching page. You may want to join in on the discussion there - it's getting pretty interesting. The Transhumanist 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shaktism

Thank you for reviewing Shaktism. The issues you raised about POV will be soon addressed. Til then, if you feel that any of your suggestions are fulfilled, please strike them. Also can you elaborate on any other MOS issues. Thank you.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Thank you, you wrote all... and compliments for the article shaktism :) Brískelly^Talk 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And happy 2008!!! Brískelly^Talk 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Dynasty

I don't know how I managed it—without hurting detail or narrative outline—but I've reduced the Ming Dynasty article from 102 KB to 96 KB! I hope that 96 KB is acceptable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the gallery and two images that were questionable in regards to ornamentation. I hope you like the article as it is now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes pic

With luck, I should be able to upload it this evening {Australian time) or early tomorrow morning. I have a Commons account, but I have my doubts that the image I have in mind would be suitable for Commons as I doubt it would be freely licenced. The photograph belongs to the Barnes family and was taken by an unknown photographer sometime around 1970. {{PD-Australia}} seems to preclude this being in the Public Domain. Any advice you have on its status would be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other one would be fair use I think and require uploading at Wikipedia. When uploaded I may need some assistance with the rationale to keep BetaCommandBot off my case. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. There is another Barnes image - Image:SidBarnesLaterLife.jpg where I do need some help. This is not PD in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the caption in the book! Perhaps it is a stretch but there is an enigmatic quality to the photo, with the drawn half smile as if he is trying to make an effort despite his weariness; or maybe that is just me reading too much into it. :-) It comes under item B on {{PD-Australia}}. The 25 year rule does not apply to photographs. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if I get excited in the morning I will scan a PD headshot of Barnes that isn't a cigarette card and has him wearing a baggy green. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New coachees

I've taken on 3 new coachees (see the VC template), with another potential coming on-board Jan 8th. D.M.N. has been through 3 RfAs, and is in for a rough ride, I think. :-) I've grilled him using your method, to get an idea of his experience and areas of activity. I'd appreciate it if you'd look his coaching page over to see if there are any questions I've missed. The Transhumanist 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Dweller, you were right. I'm actually happy you said that. Flashy probably isn't the way to go, and I'm happy that somebody has actually told me that I need to stay plain. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller

Hello! Two things:

Any chance of a rescan of Image:Miller on drive.jpg? Lovely image, just not the best scan.
Any chance of you lending your very helpful hands to filling the enormous gaps in the article?

Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance, unfortunately no. The library which had that book does not allow borrowing and the only way I managed to get a picture of it was to bring in a dig camera and take a photograph of it. Not the most effective way. There are better pictures around though. I forgot to bring in the photos, but I have a few more Miller pics ready, about 6-7 of them, including some football pictures. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second instance I will be away most of January. However, I have just gotten Miller's autobio so I can do a bit over the weekend. I think I'll take 1946-47 - his first full Test series. Please don't double up on that :). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you keep an eye on Ian Meckiff, Ray Lindwall and Don Tallon since I might not be here and it might be picked up by the GAC reviewer while I'm away. There shouldn't be any major holes that need filling in at all! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re Miller - that's great. If you could make a Commons cat for him and bung the appropriate thingy on the article, I'll take a peek. I'll try and leave you the 46-47 series. Finally, if you'd like to turn this redlink blue with any articles or project pages you'd like monitored, I'll do my best. Let me know when you go and return. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blnguyen/Contributions - my quick mini-watchlist. It is not the articles being vandalised or messed up so much, I just meant that the GAC for Ian Meckiff, Don Tallon and Ray Lindwall may get a request for small tweaks and such. If the reviewer spots a black hole then just don't worry about looking things up and fixing it, I'll get back to it when I am back. I've added my pics into the Miller article. Also, I probably have more materials on Miller than you do, so just nominate whatever part you want to work on and I'll work around it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be enough in the autobio for about 400-500k on Miller, so we will need forks eventually - Childhood of Keith Miller, Keith Miller in the Royal Australian Air Force, Keith Miller as a footballer, Keith Miller as a captain, Australian Services career of Keith Miller, Keith Miller and Princess Margaret, Anti-bureaucracy of Keith Miller Keith Miller as a journalist, Captaincy of Keith Miller, Test career of Keith Miller, Lindwall-Miller partnership, Keith Miller as a Casanova (LOL) etc... Just take your pick on what you want to focus on.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still going strong...

Hey dude, just popped by to say hello and to let the wiki-verse know I'm still alive, despite having had to wash a 40 year old Asian elephant in the Nam Tha river. Another three days in Laos before we start our journey back, with a three day stop over in Bangkok (gas masks to the ready) and then home. I see your Budgies are doing ok while my lot abjectly refuse to get anything away from home... What a weird season so far. And as for that Scottish chap dying virtually on the pitch, terrible. Anyway, more soon I'm sure, everything okay with you? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]