User talk:Dweller/Archive19

What's going on?

Hey dude. Got your mail, what's happening? And where are we with NCFC History? Still rocking on? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not convinced it meets WP:BIO either but it'd do no harm to mainspace it and AFD it - just tell the editor you're going to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent ages looking for those claims, can't find anything. I'd looked in the past a few times and still nothing today I'm afraid - perhaps they need to be commented out for the moment.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the PR thing either at the moment. Seems the April template transcludes with the PR page headers, not good. This is the only PR so far this month so let's see if someone else spots it... Oh and I'll get to the citations immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite webs all look in order to me, I'm just checking the web links... all good there too. So it works for me, guess we wait for the moaning to start! Oh, and I don't like those two images squashing text, goes against WP:MOS#Images but I couldn't think of a good place to which to move them... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I listed it at WP:FOOTBALL main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List started for you, and what a jolly good job of it I've done! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, naughty dweller. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pah, misread the whole thing. That's what you get for focusing on two wikis simultaneously. Yeah, good call, I missed the nuke button, what a shame... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other wiki

Yeah, it's the simple English one. I stumbled upon these unified accounts and thought I'd check it out. There are hundreds of footy articles in need of even just a stub being created....! You may notice the odd Bot adding Simple English wiki links to a number of famous articles, like Portman Road..! Go check it out... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it a couple more days, there's a PR backlog drive I've been working in, you're guaranteed some advice within three days at the moment.... In the meantime let's get the manager and seasons lists up and running... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience me old mucker. Plenty to be going on with. You've got to knock out a stats and records page too (although that'll probably only ever be a stub, right?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well keen or not, seasons have been in the three footy FTs so far, so you'll need to hone your tabulation skills. Although there won't be many coloured cells, so we won't need to work too hard on that! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure we could knock up a colour just for success in the ZDS or Simod or Norfolk Hospital Cup?! We'll work on that after we've finished managers and records... Let's kick it! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be painful but you'll need to split the managers who have been there more than once for the sort to work properly. That means getting a source for each stint... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barely 24 hours before this happened... told you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old images

Well the Gills ones came about because I have a number of books on the history of the club which have been published down the years and I pulled some antique images from them. Is there a book on the history of the Canaries that might have some pre-1923 (and therefore free) images in.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, any image originally published before 1/1/23 is OK under the terms of the {{PD-US}} tag. Certainly nobody's ever challenged any of the ones I've uploaded using that tag....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

(this with reference to User talk:Electrobe#Formal warning)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Electrobe

Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splits

Hey, how's it going? Re:not splitting Megson, that would wreck the sorting on dates which would be a cause for objection. Is there no way you can source his individual spells? As for FT without a list of players, well I doubt it... but the outcome of the Arsenal FL debate should throw further light on where to go with this. Is this no decent record of NCFC players > 100 apps? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just stand there, get citing!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe I'm actually in a meeting away from my PC? I'll see what I can do later on... soz. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock

Thanks. I've moved Woodstock (disambiguation) to Woodstock, so the talk page has an article again. --Russ (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

No worries on the review. Always obliging to help in any way possible. If you get chance, could you take a peek at my review for Valley Parade. Ta. Peanut4 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt responses. I replied at the review, it all looks fine to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied too. And I closed out the snowbound AFD. Just for you. I'll recheck the history article shortly... busy day, can you believe it? Actually away from a PC for 99% of the day. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're more than welcome. Resolved your FA/UEFA issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh, the old 1988 Windies FA... cool. We ought to revise it and check it's not going to embarrass us both! Don't worry about the F.C. vs FA issue. It's anomalous for sure but there you go. I'm hoping that I can get the Intertoto managers up and running quite quickly (while I have the energy!) so I can head back to FTC again. All help (I noticed your Glen->Glenn) appreciated. Plus I'm bolstering Simple English's football stock - page creation rate is incredibly slow over there - I created Blackpool F.C. at 9.02am and it's just shuffled off the top 10 new pages... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New list

Hey dude, me and Struway2 knocked off the rest of the Intertoto list, it's up at FLC now so you can get rowdy with me there....! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all the things you want citing are cited in the list? Nothing new introduced in the lead that isn't cited in the main body? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The article is about the managers themselves, not really the competition... if you want to add a little something around that then cool, but I'm not particularly fussed either way... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I am not really that new to wikipedia, I was an IP lurker for a few months, so I got quite familiar with policies et cetera, but thanks for the warm welcome, It's nice to recieve a freindly message sometimes, also, I use twinkle already, wonderfull isn't it? Have a good day, Troplock (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dweller, troplock has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nope, that was my own work, couldn't find the relevent notice, so I made my own, there should be a custom warning feature. Troplock (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wide range of notices, but nothing for blocked IP's, or any custom message function, the message's are from April fools day, I'll do something about them now, cheers for reminding me. Troplock (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin D. Weiss

This article also asserts notability, though badly. Please take it to AfD. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was for G11 advertising, and not A7 notability. The only claim to notability is that the user says the articles subject has been in some newspapers, a claim which is by no means sourced. Other then that the article is one major promotion for a the subject and book he wrote, and only contains links to websites of companies help by this user. The article is in such a bad state that everything would need a rewrite before it would be a good article. If you seriously want me to do so i will take it to AFD, but i predict this is just going to be snowballed. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I disagree that it is such blatant and unredeemable advertising that it can't be knocked into a decent article, which is why I tagged it with {{advert}}. There are other notability claims, such as writing a best-selling book. Now that may be untrue, but it's the sort of thing that should be examined at AfD not speedy. Where there's a doubt, it's far better for things to go to AfD. I agree there's a fair chance AfD will decide to delete. I disagree it's a cast iron certainty. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okidoki, ill take it to AFD then :). Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I do tend to speedy 90%+ of stuff that I see tagged - you're probably unfortunate in seeing 2 in quick succession that I disagreed with. And I do know that some admins take a more aggressive line than me, but I think it's important to push AGF (and BITE) - especially where a decent notability claim could be lying covered in the baggage of advertising and nonsense one often sees from newbies. In fact, when I think back to my own early new articles, I shudder with embarrassment! :-) --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your thought about your first articles, is my thought about my first 2-3 days tagging for CSD :). My tags back then were way to aggressive, even by the still vigilante standards i use now. I fully agree with you that WP:Bite is an important aspect of the entire wp:civil code, and should be followed whenever possible (Didnt see this was a new editor though). Im personally not exactly a fan of WP:AGF, but that is mostly a leftover from my vandalism fighting days, where that rule happened to cause me quite some extra work.

As a little sidenote: the AFD is started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin D. Weiss, so perhaps you want to have a look at it, since you were also involved. Either way, happy editing to you , and see you around (At the 90% chance ratio i hope!) Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. btw, see my contrib to the AfD. I think this chap's actually notable. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i just found a very nice example to emphasis that there are conversationist and deletionist administrators (How about starting a new religion for those two?): Martin D. Weiss Martin d . weiss . The user posted the exact same article twice, and i both tagged those; One came out deleted and one came out with a pretty good chance to live at AFD, thanks to your Google lookup. Makes a person wonder how many potentially good topics have been deleted cause of his CSD tags, and how many junk articles would have gotten trough if he wouldn't have tagged anything. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden Cricketers of the Year

Hey you. Let's not talk football. How about a little ALoan reminiscing and getting his former FL back to FL again? I think it's a cinch - bit of citation, bit of tabulation and, I think, some flags for nationality and a summary table, some images, Bob's your uncle? Bit of a diversion... Hope you're all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've had a look at tabulating it, it's going to be a long list... Or should I tabulate it and keep it on one line..? Let me fiddle... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, what's best?

Year	Winners
2006	Matthew Hoggard, Simon Jones, Brett Lee, Kevin Pietersen, Ricky Ponting
2007	Paul Collingwood, Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammed Yousuf, Monty Panesar, Mark Ramprakash

Year	Winners
2006	Matthew Hoggard	Simon Jones	Brett Lee	Kevin Pietersen	Ricky Ponting
2007	Paul Collingwood	Mahela Jayawardene	Mohammed Yousuf	Monty Panesar	Mark Ramprakash

Year	Nationality	Winner
2007	England	Paul Collingwood
	Sri Lanka	Mahela Jayawardene
	Pakistan	Mohammed Yousuf
	England	Monty Panesar
	England	Mark Ramprakash

I have an inclination to the middle one... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. I'll make a start. And perhaps we can load it with lovely images of the winners down the side, like a certain other FLC has rather elegantly achieved...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a semi-automated way of creating those tables now, just need to fill in the flags... your knowledge of the leather/willow olden days is probably much better than mine so you should be able whip through add ENG, WIN, PAK, IND, RSA, AUS etc where necessary... I'll keep going with the real old days (where the automation isn't so neat!) ... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd be good at that! When you get bored, there's my FLC for intertoto managers awaiting your eagle eyes... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try filling out the flags from the very earliest section, so we don't e/c too much! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image changed, image of Ranjitsinhji used per your suggestion (funky!) and now just sourcing for the lead and the remaining flags to go... Can you find some sources independent of the general one? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, each of the claims in the lead which aren't backed up by the table. I'm not sure I get the whole "From 2000 to 2003, inclusive, the award was made based on all cricket around the world, but the decision was reversed in 2004 with the introduction of a separate Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World award." for example. We need some (hopefully) independent sources for this and other parts of the lead or they'll be picked up. Per NCFC history FAC, I'll be there asap, and will do my best to help with comments. Sorry for being hopeless at the PR, I got embroiled in the intertoto/withdrawn FTC/new FTC thing. Will/must try harder. Finally, as for the summary tables at Wisden, I never can add up properly...! Still with Safari, if I search for ENG it should tell me how many occurences there are on the page... So I can handle that tonight I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going through them quickly! I think it needs to be reviewed before straight FLC this time. I'd like someone like User:Blnguyen to check it over. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)++[reply]

Sod it, I've gone and listed it. On reflection I'm not entirely sure how useful a summary table would be. As you say, heavily ENG biased, and if we do it per section no doubt someone will say what's the significance of each section, what's the premise behind the split, where's our objective rationale for the decision to go up to 1980 for example. So, unless it gets mentioned at the FLC, I'm proposing we leave it for the time being. Besides, we should be damned pleased with what we've done since yesterday! Laters. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought listing it would keep you on your toes! Sorry for the various oversights! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just apologising in case you felt I'd jumped the gun, as usual! I don't think we need to go too mad, just do what we're bid at the FLC now... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Norwich City F.C.

Hi Dweller, TRM beat me to archiving the peer review. I will reread the article and weigh in at FAC next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for Closedmouth

Hey there, Over the last month or so I keep bumping into Closedmouth (talk · contribs · count), and so far everything I've seen shows a courteous and quite knowledgeable editor. I've been snooping though his past looking at nominating him for adminship, and saw you already brought it up a couple of months ago. I found his response to you, but did anything further come of it, e-mail etc? If not would you be interested in doing a co-nom, as I'm only seeing good at the moment? Let me know what you think. Cheers ^Khukri 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLC SOS

Hey dude, I know you've done your best, but any clues on anyone else who'd be prepared to review List of speakers who have spoken to both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament or Colleges of the University of Cambridge? They're sitting with three supports each but, despite "consensus rules" they need four... Anyway, no bother if not, just wondered if you mixed in circles with people who gave a damn about those things? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yeah, I would say it is considerably better than it was when it was delisted. I'd say go ahead and renominate it, although you might get some hassling over the flags. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I try to avoid reviewing FLCs because I handle a lot of the promotions. Usually the only times I'll support/oppose is if I really disagree with that list or if it has been an FLC for more than 2 weeks and needs a vote to pass. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City FC FAC

While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. (I have to find time to edit my own projects sometime!) It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article. Hope this makes things clearer! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, Sandy knows. She's been coaching me when I hit a rough spot. Thanks for the encouragement. I will say that the quick look I saw at Norwich it seemed pretty decent, if that helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! Unpopular subjects as Featured Articles

I sometimes wonder whether a (probably welcome) side effect of more articles going through FAC is that esoteric things often get left to gather cobwebs due to the low level of interest. I've been lucky in that there's loads of folks to help out with birds, dinos, mammals, plants etc. but the fungi seem to be anathema to most. I had this idea of getting anything I'd contributed significantly to FA or GA as a sort of 'stable point' or recognition of such anyway. In any case, I am stuck with many of the fungus ones - I'd really like to get the iconic Amanita muscaria up to FAC but all the religious and pop culture stuff is difficult to source properly. Anyway, I was musing on the food of the gods as well, and Alastair (who was two years above me at school and is so far the only person I knew before wikipedia to turn up here) is an expert in much middle eastern theology-type stuff.....if all your enthusiasm drains too much, just tell me which fungus looks closest to FA and I'll wait until another mycophile turns up.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Craig Cricket update

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Craig Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There we are...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all ok. Hopefully you frequent FAR more and force the other FAs to lift their game :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a style section. Coming soon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Sorry I didn't continue the discussion in February, it completely slipped my mind. Regarding my lack of AfD participation, I can only say that I tend to be once bitten, twice shy, and after a few unpleasant experiences (for example), I mostly stay away from there these days. I think I just really suck at that particular process. Which is funny seeing as I originally signed up to kill an article through AfD.

Anyway, yes, I'd be willing to go through the potential humiliation of an RfA. I'll give it a go, and even if I fail, what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, right? Man, I'm speaking in clichés today. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll give it a go, but I won't promise anything. I have plenty of other things to do, and if the toolserver ever bloody catches up, I'll be mostly occupied with the list of short pages. But I will try to be more participatory in AfDs in the future, however unpleasant a process I find it. I'm just not very opinionated! :P --Closedmouth (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden

Hey dude, some big changes made. MOSFLAG did indeed suggest we were using flags for the sake of it, and even then, not correctly. So they've gone. So I've removed the "was born in"... notes and the note which covered the Welsh guy. I've also cited the 50 year jubilee thing in the lead and merged the tables. I think that's about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you think? I saw you add Grace. Should we remove someone since the images now go down quite a long way? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, why not. Go for it. I think all of Collectonian's points are now covered, either by adding better references or removing those she objected to. But it's upset JHall... (see the talk page) - damned if you do... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's done now, leave well alone, keep it stable for a few days and react to comments at the FLC... Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eastmain/Marci Lipman

Thanks for your note about User:Eastmain/Marci Lipman. I still intend to improve the article, but I haven't done so yet. Eastmain (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars and ClickA

Hi, I was the person requesting the rename of various barnstar images. Seems like the rename caused you a few problems. Sorry about that. It seems like template use was causing the issue.[1] I have manually fixed it for you.[2] -- Cat ^chi? 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what went wrong but thanks for fixing. Hope others weren't affected too! --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my software engineering instincts are right, bot tried a find and replace and ended up replacing every instance of "Barnstar.png" with "Original Barnstar.png". Avoiding things like this is exactly why I requested the rename. Poorly named images will be problematic in many ways. -- Cat ^chi? 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Hey, just "fresh" in from spending the night sleeping on the floor after watching the Sugababes. Re:more Wisden comments, couldn't see them, re:NCFC managers, Soccerbase is best avoided in the early days. I'd say any other source would be more reliable - remember that Soccerbase says that only games in its database count towards the various stats... Both my odd lists got promoted by the way, I'm on a winning streak! Plus intertoto is doing nicely so the second FT is looking positive. What you up to? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag

I see that you engaged in mentoring with TreasuryTag/Porcupine. I know that a lot of the earliest problems that he had were over his overzealous editing to Doctor Who related articles, where he'd often violate or nearly violate the 3RR, make incivil edit summaries, remove comments from talk pages, etc.

From looking at his talk page and recent archives, it appears that he has been getting himself into trouble in this area again. You may want to step in and try to help him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry, but I have sent you an email. I know you ask us not to, but I had my reasons. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't access it from work, which is where I am now, so it'll be later today before I see it. Just to let you know why I don't reply shortly bearing in mind I'm online now. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ding dong, you've got (a brief) mail. I've been offline because my work servers were dead. They show little consideration to my wikilife.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mummy (1999 film) FAC

I think I've gotten to all your issues. Thanks for the review, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden

Big work demo today so off until post-lunch. If you get a mo, can you sort out Johnlp's last issue - the image and a note next to Wisden in the table to explain he isn't actually recognised as a COTY? Also need to finish a fair use rationale for the front cover. If you can't, not to worry, I'll get onto it later. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, graph. The source data (I think) I lost when my iBook died. I'd need to revisit it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like I bolloxed it up. Sorry. I'll have to do it later... It'll take me a while because I keep losing the division structures (for the horizontal lines) every time I do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Any idea where I can get league sizes since 1920 again? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. And yeah, wow! That's what a bit of concerted joint effort can do in a few days! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I don't see any reason why the discussion should be closed yet, there is still debate and there isn't a consensus. I'll probably get a neutral party to close it and make the call because I have been involved in the discussion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure because I've never been involved in an FLRC this contentious before which is partially why I'm going to get someone else to close it. Right now I'm more in the middle. At first I was firmly on the side of delisters, but I am starting to turn because of the length argument. We'll see how things go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help

Hi. I'm being stalked and abused by one of the admins here, and I was going through his talk page looking at all of the other people who he's been bullying. I noticed on one of them you offered to help. I was working on a couple of pages that he led to charge to getting zapped through repeated (and unevidenced) accusations of sock puppetry. (He was forced to disown these on his user page but has not yet responded to polite requests to remove them from my user page). Are you able to help me with these articles and get them to wikipedia standards? Camera123456 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday wishes

Hey, you remembered. You knew?! Awesome. Thanks. I'll ping you later. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear....

Oh well, fingers crossed for you. Do you want me to go ahead and tweak things at the FAC or wait till TRM has a look? (i.e. I am not sure who did what how on the page so what deficits are left by you being out of action) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maree Sole

Greetings, I haven't received a responce from you about whether you will restore the Maree Sole entry onto the timelord2067 talk page as you indicated - are you planing to do so? --Timelord2067 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi back atcha

Yeah, I saw your note to Tony, wait and see. Let me know if you need me to do anything while you're around. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the King edits too. Since I'm usually quite heavily involved over at FLC I thought I'd leave it to independent eyes to pick up on what you'd picked up on! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just those two points really that I couldn't source (see FAC page) - never mind about Gyromitra esculenta, you gave me some good leads on pork which I still have to masticate on. Hope it isn't too serious, whatever it is (i.e. merely annoying rather than anything...worse). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands lacks a preamble on what the issue with professionalism/amaturism was at teh time they were nearly chucked out of the league. It'd just be a couple of sentences explaining the issue as it sorta launches straight into it and assumes the reader is familiar with it. Beginning of para 2 of Early years: 1902–1930. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured it'd be pretty straightforward just didn't have the exact details and ref myself...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks, I think the list does look really good. As well, I will probably close the Arsenal FLRC today as a no consensus. I doubt the issue is over, and it might not hurt for you to start talks within the FOotball WikiProject about a possible solution. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I would guess no, but I'm not the right one to ask. Perhaps someone should start a discussion about changing the FL criteria to include a note like "A list is deemed comprehensive if it includes all notable items from a topic, or establishes a set agreed upon criteria and includes a hat-note that points to a relevant Category." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be good. There's a FLC at the moment, "List of University of Waterloo people", which, as far as I'm concerned, will never be comprehensive. Just because the football lists used a set of criteria to identify their players, this list does similar. I think it's a fair compromise. Plus, the old Medal of Honor stuff, 3500 recipients in a list? Nein danke. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's think about centralising this conversation. How about at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists, or similar, with an "advert" at the talk page? --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Funny that this has stemmed some kind of NHL listers vs Football (soccer) listers thing. And I've upset folks by saying I need a consistent approach to "incomplete" lists. Just out of interest, the NHL lists (imho) are pretty bland and don't feature sorting for example, while at least the football lists allow you to see who scored the most goals, made the most appearances etc. Perhaps Scorpion would like to start the debate (again!) as a neutral? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the FL criteria. It seems to me that this situation is already covered in 1b where it deals with dynamic lists needing to include the "major components". That's a subjective term... and therefore surely within the purview of a WikiProject to define in a NPOV, easily assessable and logical manner for lists in its area. --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm right to start the debate, but about the Waterloo list, there are several school related FLs that list notable alumni, so those are in the same boat as the player lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Yeah, that good ol' "dynamic list". However, for football articles, and folks who played pro and died 100 years ago, they're not exactly going to dynamically alter the list. It's a long hop to exclude them under those terms... Hence the dichotomy, you can have an utterly incomplete "dynamic" list making FL but a very thorough, complete, precisely sourced and accurate list failing because it uses its own criteria to limit its exposure. That, I think, is the crux. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-What do you two think about my 1b suggestion? Alumni and football players (etc) would both be covered by this? --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'm happy to start editing that red link. Let's not "advertise" it at the talk page till we think we've got the problem well defined. --Dweller (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, you start, I'll follow. I got quite embroiled in the last debate so my input at an early stage would most likely be construed as a bad influence. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink has gone blue. I'll use the project page to state the problem. Talk page for discussing it? --Dweller (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold, dispassionate, that's me! I'll contribute as neutrally as possible! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I've had my eye on those FLCs for some time now (as I'm sure you can imagine, what with me being there quite often) and so I just spent the time to actually voice my opinion. I had reviewed those articles before but did not decide to show my support until now. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Aislabie

the petition was the anti-slavery lee petition,i have added an external link for the followingShanbhag.rohan 10:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Good for you - have a great one! I'm just about OK :-) I'll probably have a wee chat with you when you return, but them I'm on an "exam" Wikibreak during UK exam season, May-June. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCFC HistFAC

Hmm, looking good now. Take it easy, give me a shout when you're back. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Welcome back. I'll ping you later. I have been mainly doing PRs and FLCs, nothing overly constructive in the mainspace. So something to do would be good...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA attribution? Don't stress. I know what I've done, so do you. That's all I need. So... Bradman. Mammoth. By the way, I've clearly forgotten to mention the Old Farm derby. You're not singing.... any more... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another pair of EA derbies next season beckons...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer james

I chose advertisement as I felt the person was advertising themselves. I based this on the history which showed Spencerjames1979 was the only person editing the article. Thank you for the heads up on how to handle it next time. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrha-Dorrha GAA

I would say this club is notable,playing in the highest level of club competition in Tipperary, however the page needs major tidy Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GAA is entirely amatureGnevin (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the top level is amature ,no selling out in the GAA ,just kidding . The club has produced two players who have competed at the highest level Tony Reddin and Ken Hogan. At is also playing in the highest level championship in TipperaryGnevin (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need more opinions

OK, we need some more eyes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est - some are supporting while others have a problem with comprehensiveness, criticizing it as a book review. I have niggling doubts along these lines too but Cirt can't find any more material to expand the last two paragraphs. I am happy to go with a bigger consensus so am keen for more folks to look in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comment at the FAC. I have searched through at least (6) or so database archives and I have been unable to find information about the book's sales history - aside from the 2 editions of publication. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, I have responded to your comment and made some adjustments to the article in response to your points raised. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

Are you active there? If so, I should add your name to my candidate list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

Hi Dweller. Would you possibly mind reviewing the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article for me. The article is currently up for peer review, and the PR is located here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Don

Citewebs. You're right. I think I'm about develop RSI on this one article alone. Sorry for poor input so far, have been busy at work, busy at home, busy at FLC, busy at PR. Enough. I'm cracking on with DB... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the "in popular culture" subsections need to be merged? They're might short.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about weekend. As for Bradman, I managed to source quite a bit of it but if you think it should go, axe it. I'd keep a paragraph at least, maybe re:stamps, archetypal name etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sig

Thanks for the compliment - I have had it since May 2007 as one of the first places I used it was here (and it got included in Athaenara's signature gallery too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of eruvin nominations

Hi Dweller: Thanks for offering your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eruvin. I have placed a complaint with User Bstone (talk · contribs) at User talk:Bstone#List of eruvin as a second nomination [3] that List of eruvin was once nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities with eruv, if he would have looked on the talk page he would have seen the notice: "This article was nominated for deletion on July 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep." [4] Therefore his current re-nomination of the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eruvin should have noted this as a "second nomination" such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eruvin (second nomination) or perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities with eruv (second nomination) and provided a link to the earlier AfD that resulted in a "Keep" as is commonly done, but not the way he did it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Reason Revolution

Hi - You reverted an addition I had made to the page. What I wrote was factual and is verifiable. Why do you think it was unconstructive, and what modification would you suggest to make it less so? Is it because the addition needs references, in which case why not just cite?Justpassinboy (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I will reinstate the article when I have time to locate the refere nces.Justpassinboy (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of eruvin

See Directory (databases). This is merely a list of links. It's best served by a category. If there were text, I wouldn't oppose. Corvus cornix_talk 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman and wordplay

Good stuff, but the one that really caught my eye in that article is "cankerous". Oldelpaso (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bradman looks to be coming along really well. Which is more than I can say for Bert right now. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I tried a merge of the "in popular culture" sections, feel free to continue to butcher it. I've also lost the plot on the world two lamest edit wars, the FC thing (which, incidentally, User:Sarumio still edits without consensus, he did a sneaky one last night) and now whether the England national football managers article should have an 's' in the title or not. So I'm out for a bit. I'll probably focus purely on mainspace stuff for a bit, and keep up with the PR/FL stuff but I'm not going to get involved with those things. Apparently, I "... bitch more than anyone [[[User:Greg.Alpaugh]]'s] ever seen..." so at least I've achieved something...! Hope you're ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

That's fine. I'm not striking or apologizing. The comment was well warrented, as Rambling was being obstructionist and claiming ownership over the article to prevent a move on legit grounds. He also has switched his position several times in order to prevent consensus from forming or the move from being made based on that consensus both on the article talk page and User talk:Tone. I get your point and it was fair to call me out on it, but sometimes you have to make a professional foul, to extend the metaphor. -- Grant .Alpaugh 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solidrage

It is totally fine I am not mad I just wanted to see if i could see it from any where. It was just an experiment Thanks!!--Solidrage (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Dweller...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

What about?
I'd prefer to have any communication about this project done here, but depending on the answer to the above question, I might be open to email. Lemme know. Regards. -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even tell me what it was about? -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary request

Hi there. You asked me to "delete" your Wiktionary UserID (rather than your User Page). I have no idea how to do that (or even if it is possible). I have had a quick look at the various special pages and buttons, and the nearest that I can find is the "rename a user" system. I assume that would free up the original User account - but that is only a guess. You would lose your "ownership" of the Wiktionary edits - but there aren't all that many. Would you like me to do that? (answer here or on my Wiktionary talk page) Cheers. Jeff Knaggs (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) (SemperBlotto on Wiktionary)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. I couldn't care less about those edits :-) Suppose you renamed that account and its edits to User:Disposable or whatever. Would that then free up User:Dweller for me to usurp? --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it - and see what happens. Jeff Knaggs (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to "Dweller-old". See if you can recreate it. Jeff Knaggs (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! That worked brilliantly, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]