User talk:Dweller/Archive21

The Don

Thanks. I plan to do a full-scale run-through shortly - perhaps during the end of the New Zealand innings at Old Trafford today? - and am getting hold of a couple of references to fill out one or two bits. Incidentally, do you have JSTOR access? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

I've looked at the lead. Lots of work required. Needs collaboration by others throughout. Thus far, your first issue is definitely a problem; I don't see flow and technicality as issues—not thus far, nor during a quick flick through.

• Opening sentence POV, I think. I've heard opinions that he wouldn't measure up to today's batsmen. Tone it down. "Was considered to be one of the greatest batsmen of the time (or "of the 20th century" if you think you can go that far). Generally, the opening para is, yes, just too praising.
• "Around" --> "in".
• "myriad" = 10,000?

Macquarie dictionary definitions: (1) an indefinitely great number (5) having innumerable phases, aspects etc eg. the myriad mind of Shakespeare. Ideal choice of word because he set many other records not mentioned in the text because of size restrictions, some of which are more of esoteric interest to the cricketophile.Phanto282 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Committed to attacking, entertaining cricket,..."—"attacking" doesn't go with "entertaining", and I took the opening grammar the wrong way. (Attacking what?)

As an antonym to defensive. Bodyline can be classed as "attacking" cricket, yet it is never described as "entertaining". They do go together, especially when considering Bradman's crowd drawing capacity as an individual, which completes the sentence. There was a recent academic study on his effect on crowds that claimed up to 50% of Australian cricket revenue during his playing days is directly attributable to Bradman's appearance at the batting crease.Phanto282 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "within" --> "in"
• "even as he became reclusive"—"after"?
• Puke: do we have to bring that little cunt into it? (Howard). Who on earth cares what he thinks? And "living Australian" appears twice at the end.TONY (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PS On the bright side, this has potential to be a FA. Your writing holds together quite well, if you ignore the many little glitches (that's better than most people's!).

Some of this I agree with, but I'd say the consensus is so overwhelming about Bradman's exceptional record that I think we can say "greatest" in WP's voice, despite the marginal, dissenting voices you mention.

Howard - what, isn't he a frequently quoted expert? :)

I also think that "attacking, entertaining" is OK, as it implies two different characteristics of his batting. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the mini-review above from Tony. I agree in general about the over-praising of Bradman, although I think the criticism was more along the lines that that modern scientific field placing etc. may have made him less of a statistical anomaly, but still a very, very good batsman. Secondly, Howard did not make a claim about Bradman as a cricketer, and therefore Howard's level of cricket expertise is irrelevant. Howard claimed that Bradman was the greatest living Australian. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Howard, he was the Prime Minister at the time and the community that Howard generally spoke for on cultural matters (once again regardless of one's opinion ...) is large and influential. As such this statement is significant enough for inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Wisden article referenced by Wisden Cricketers of the Century provides convincing support for the claim that Bradman was not just the greatest batsman, but the greatest cricketer of the 20th century. 100 experts each had to cast votes for who they considered to be the five greatest cricketers of the 20th century. Bradman was selected by all 100, and only Sobers - with 90 votes - came anywhere close. I think that those modern players who cast doubt on his pre-eminence in general lack nuch knowledge of cricket history. Being English, I'm not writing as a particular fan of Bradman, but I think it would be a mistake to tone down the article too much in a search for "balance" - the man was phenomenal. JH (talk page) 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm finally beginning to make some headway at Bradman's PR. I'd like to bowdlerise (sp?) User_talk:Dweller#Bradman to the relevant PR." Please feel free. I think that the word you were looking for was "plagiarise". :) JH (talk page) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The greatest" will be knocked down at FAC. It leaves no room for doubt, and according to what standards and variables was he that? There's room for opinion, and WP should not pontificate. As far as Howard goes, why bring some self-confessed "cricket tragedy" into it—one who's not a technical expert from a player's/trainer's/commentator's angle, and who himself is a controversial figure? "the community that Howard generally spoke for on cultural matters (once again regardless of one's opinion ...) is large and influential"—dont' make some of our readers puke. The authority and status of the article will suffer if controversial statements are deliberately inserted. B. was "phenomenal" for his day, but the claims here are significantly wider than that. TONY (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) "Attacking, entertaining"—this awkward juxtaposition begs the question of whether the "attacking" bit (better "aggressive", surely) is what made is entertaining. I'm not sure this strong line is what you want to spin. TONY (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

*Puke: do we have to bring that little cunt into it? (Howard). Who on earth cares what he thinks?. What does this sort of language bring to the table? The reference to Howard was added to the article recently; he was quoting a phrase that was sometimes used in Bradman's later years. BTW, the phrase is "cricket tragic" not "cricket tragedy", probably Howard's only true addition to the Australian vernacular. If you want to essay a stab at Bradman's place in cricket history based on the old chestnut that modern cricket is sooooooooooo much better, try talking to someone who has played the game at any level and see if they reckon they can knock up a ton every third time they wander out to bat.

Phanto282 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your views on JH are well known and of course you are entitled to them. But if you are saying that Bradman being called the "Greatest living Australian" by the Prime Minister is not relevant to the article, I have to wonder whether your strong opinion is affecting your judgement here. If the Prime Minister's opinion is on a subject such as the GLA is not worth noting, then whose is? I certainly do not want to make you "puke" just pointing out that your view on JH is not shared by a large and influential group of Australians, including 47% of Australians at the last federal election. The views of this 47% can't just be dismissed because we don't like them. Disagreeing with JH and his supporters does not make their opinions and thoughts any less notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of comments on the peer review, about the "attacking, entertaining cricket" issue amd the Accrington question. However the peer review link took me to Wikipedia:Peer review/Donald Bradman/archive2 and I wondered whether the "archive2" bit meant that I should no longer be adding stuff there. (I still did so, though.) JH (talk page) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have one. ;) Regards, Anthøny 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Good to see you are helping the conrinsh regionalists disrput wikipedia as usual. A handful of these editors go around removing England from articles regarding Cornwall as they are under the illusion Cornwall is a country.

Trainovers (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

History of cricket: peer review

Hello again. Thanks for your inputs to this review. I'm going to do some work on the article this weekend to make use of the feedback received. I'll report back when I've made some progress. All the best. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD on Why Cows Moo

As clearly explained on the tag, do not re-add a prod tag that has been removed. Also, the reason I removed it in the first place is that WP:PROD explains that articles that have been through a deletion discussion should not be prod-ed; near the bottom, the policy page says, "Check the article's deletion log to confirm that it has never previously been proposed for deletion using the {{prod}} process, undeleted or been discussed on AfD. If it has been, it is not eligible for deletion by this process and should be kept or sent to AfD." --C S (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, AFD is probably the right thing. I have no opinion about the article, but it caught my eye and I just want to see the proper procedures is followed. I see that it was tagged as CSD but then retagged as a prod by DGG. I have no idea why, but I expect he has a good reason for it. --C S (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Dweller, just a heads up that I answered your questions here. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate... I'm sorry you were underwhelmed; I could have written some serious essays in answer to your questions, but I think that might have overwhelmed a little much. :) That said, clarification is my idea of fun, if you want any (though I get the feeling that asking it anywhere other than the 360,106 bytes page would be good, unless you prefer it there!). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

bradman

I hope you didn't replicate my c... word there too. TONY (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Baths and bathrobes in America

A "bath" can mean 3 things in America: the act of washing (taking a bath), the big tub you do it in (get in the bath and wash up) or the room with the toilet and bath tub in it (My house has 2.5 baths). A bathrobe is not the robe you wear while taking a bath, its the robe you wear when you get out of your bath. [1]. The British term dressing gown sounds so, well, fruity. Guys don't mind wearing a robe. Not many guys feel comfortable in a gown. Well, there's Eddie Izzard, but he's British, so that explains that... Toodles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical horror II: The return of the undead tooltip

(soon in a theatre near you)

I've replied (once) at Template talk:Fact#"This claim needs references to reliable sources since May 2008". Waltham, The Duke of 09:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New FLRC instructions?

Hi Dweller. I've taken the bull by the horns. Please criticise. Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates. PS why no ToC on that talk page? TONY (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

reply

Sorry, I will be more careful next time. Thanks for the notification-- penubag  (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SoccerFootball

Hello, Dweller. Would you mind going over my tweaks here. I came across the edit because it was made by a user with some destructive contributions. Though I still root for my home team, I don't know enough to really edit, let alone reference football articles. Oh and could you check this one as well? I'm not really looking forward to the next couple of weeks that much, I will have to carry flags of several countries stuffed in a bag to appease hooligans in town (and people at work). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (Goes to show how little I know. Forgot about that. Didn't mean to add insult. :)

WP:RfB

Cross-posted, per request, at 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Hello Anthony. I would like to nominate you to become a bureaucrat and this is a formal request for you to consider running for the position. Please drop me a line at my talk page and indicate whether you would or would not be interested in tipping your toe into the maelstrom of RfB. FWIW, I think you'll make a great addition to the ranks of the Crats. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll run. :) Will cross-post to your talk page. Anthøny 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

*psst* {{RfB-nom}} does the job for you. :) Anthøny 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting on Donald Bradman

I've started copyediting the article. I don't know much about cricket so it might not be perfect. I'm very more experienced it copyediting baseball articles, but I think I could do well with cricket articles. -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Longer blocks

Feel free to anon-only block primary/secondary schools such as 209.202.75.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) up to a year at a time using {{schoolblock}}. Trust me, you're going to be playing whack-a-vandal forever if you only block such IPs for 3 hours at a time. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re : Bradman

Hello, I located you from user Blnguyen's page. My user name is Anup Ramakrishnan (posting from outside of my account now). This man Blnguyen has really caused a lot of trouble on more than one cricket-related site on Wiki. He seems to be from Vietnam but seems to be everywhere that cricket is even breathed a mention of. I understand you made that comment regarding his having kind of belittled Donald Bradman. That he is bound to do for that is the only way that he can actually hype up the greatest ever FTB who goes by the name of Sachin Tendulkar into the greatest ever batsman, which is the greatest ever joke in Sporting history.

If you go to the SRT page you would see that this man has passed off a ridiculous article written by some unknown journalist where he (ONLY he) believes that he was better than the Don, as a 'Wisden Article'. Double fraud - in that he again provides this as a citation for that SRT was 'ranked the best ODI bat ever' when Wisden had clearly ranked Vivian Richards as the best ever there. I tried to modify the SRT page accordingly but to no avail, there are so many biased, cheap, mean people even on this site, that makes it one of the most libelous articles on Wiki.

Besides Donald Bradman who is no doubt the greatest batsman ever, as also the likes of Vivian Richards, Garfield Sobers, Walter Hammond, Jack Hobbes, Rohan Kanhai, Sunil Gavaskar, Greg Chappell etc are way better than SRT ever was. They played in eras before 1990, when pitches were uncovered and way faster and bouncier, without helmet and protective gear, and with no bowler-restricting rules. His statements lie that the Don would not cope up with today's game reeks of the stinkiest bias. The Don would have averaged 200+ in the 90s conditions and would have no average due to zero dismissals on this decade's pitches. While Richards would have caused the instantaneous retirement of every single bowler around. On the Vivian Richards page, he has mentioned that SRT was chosen the best ODI batsman ever, reverting my changes and without citation. He removed my entire commentary on the Packer Series where Richards batted like an Emperor and was in a form only the Don could have perhaps matched. He has put citation tags for very single statement that anybody has made for the King's batting style.

Unfortunately he is a Administrator and he has got some other Admins who are from Europe, NA etc and are total non-followers of the game to revert my changes. I want to burst the bubble created by people like him and request you to help me with this. I shall be back this weekend - probably Sunday to work on the Richards page. I have not seen the Bradman page in detail but shall not be surprised if these people are doing their work there too. I shall try to get a couple of Admins myself to help me with this.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.216.36 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You've logged in as an anon, which makes it difficult to reply. If you're watching my page, I'll reply here soon in full. For now, suffice to say that you couldn't be more wrong. I'll explain later. --Dweller (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's take these things one at a time, shall we?

• I understand you made that comment regarding his having kind of belittled Donald Bradman. That he is bound to do... Actually, that he hasn't done. And I'd be astonished if he ever did anything of the kind. Blngyuen is a well-respected editor generally, and particularly on cricket. Not only is he knowledgable, but I've never seen him breach WP:NPOV.

• If you go to the SRT page you would see that this man has passed off a ridiculous article written by some unknown journalist where he (ONLY he) believes that he was better than the Don, as a 'Wisden Article'. Double fraud - in that he again provides this as a citation for that SRT was 'ranked the best ODI bat ever' when Wisden had clearly ranked Vivian Richards as the best ever there. I tried to modify the SRT page accordingly but to no avail, there are so many biased, cheap, mean people even on this site, that makes it one of the most libelous articles on Wiki. First, calm down. You're not making sense. Bradman has no relevance to who is the greatest ODI player ever, as Bradman didn't play ODI cricket. However, I'll look into what you say about the citation.

• His statements lie that the Don would not cope up with today's game reeks of the stinkiest bias. Kindly don't accuse other editors of lying or bias.

• The Don would have averaged 200+ in the 90s conditions and would have no average due to zero dismissals on this decade's pitches. While Richards would have caused the instantaneous retirement of every single bowler around. We call those kinds of statement WP:OR, which is absolutely not permitted in articles.

• On the Vivian Richards page, he has mentioned that SRT was chosen the best ODI batsman ever, reverting my changes and without citation. He removed my entire commentary on the Packer Series where Richards batted like an Emperor and was in a form only the Don could have perhaps matched. He has put citation tags for very single statement that anybody has made for the King's batting style. I'll look into that.

• Unfortunately he is a Administrator Wrong. Fortunately. He's dang good at this. He's been doing it a long time. If you take the trouble to look into our policies, you'll probably agree he's doing the right thing.

• I want to burst the bubble created by people like him and request you to help me with this. I will never help with disruption, which is what you seem to be advocating. I too am an admin, and I will block and seek bans for anyone involved in disruption. However, I will look into the issues you raise that may be worth following up, not that I truly doubt Blnguyen.

In the meantime, it would be helpful to know your username so I can respond there. I'll try and work it out from the articles you mention you've edited. --Dweller (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

anup Ramakrishnan (talk · contribs) is his handle. No I've never edited Bradman except for vandalisms and haven't propagted teh theory about his average being down in the modern era. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Happened too fast ! Didn't learn about it until it was closed. Anyway, no disagreement there. Tintin 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, did that get solved? I was traveling when it came up, so was late in checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Revert

It's true that it's sometimes 1 hour ahead of UTC, although technically the time difference doesn't change - it's simply that UTC moves to daylight savings mode, which makes it a different time zone. I guess it should be clarified. I'd appreciate it if you could do that, and no hard feelings :) if you aren't feeling up to it, I'll work on it when I have time. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Mediation Committee

Hey Dweller. Thanks for your interest in joining MedCom. I think you'd be an ideal candidate to join us. What we normally do is ask a candidate to mediate one of our cases for us, just so everyone on the committee can get a feel of you, and you can also have some experience in formal mediation. Unfortunately there aren't any cases at the minute, so am I ok to let you know when we have one for you? I'll have to run it past the mailing list first however. With resepect to MedCab, you are more than welcome to carry on there - many of our members do tend to help them out if they have a backlog. Does that all sound ok to you? Hope you're good mate, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Copa del Rey will be good to look over. I'll post it to the list, but keep an eye on WP:RFM in the mean time. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FLRC delegate

Congratulations, you are now an FLRC delegate. Here's how you close them:

• Remove
  • Move to the Archive (under the appropriate header) (the GimmeBot will handle the adding of a closure box and updating the talk page)
  • Remove the list from WP:FL
  • Add the list to WP:FFL
  • Update Template:Featured list log
• Keep
  • Move to the Archive (under the appropriate header) (the GimmeBot will handle the adding of a closure box and updating the talk page)
  • Update Template:Featured list log

Have fun!

Congrats! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman in the dock?

Going for it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--RyRy5 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

mistake

I misread the article thats why. I thought it was on about something random. Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am taking more care now, its just it had one line and thats why I put the tag on it easy mistake. Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of The Sopranos episodes

Hi there. The above removal candidate has been sitting there since April 24. I addressed the problems that were brought up, but I still think it should be delisted. As you and I are now the Directors, I don't want to close it or officially support the removal. However, there have been no comments since May 28, and no edits since have been made to address the remaining issues. Want to make this your first Official one? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hola

Hey, back in business. What did I miss? Have you seen this by the way? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool tool

I asked Franamax to make a tool here, and this is what s/he came up with. Cool eh? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

May reviewer awards

		The Reviewers Award
		To Dweller, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. You really roll up your sleeves and dig in to help ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC

Hi there. There are four FLRC that are from May 12 or earlier. I don't feel comfortable to close them as I've commented on them and !voted. Would you mind closing these to avoid a COI on my part? Now our positions have been finalised I'll refrain from !voting, though I haven't decided about commenting yet.

• Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of The Sopranos episodes
• Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of United States Senate committees
• Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of ISS spacewalks
• Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cricket terms

You could also do Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of HIV-positive people if you want. It's just over 2 weeks old, although it received another comment today so I'll defer to you on whether to keep it open a little longer or not. Thanks, regards, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman

I've done all the copy-editing I could. I must say, the article is well referenced, written, and contains good content. Was just a little concerned that the article had many POV sentences. I know it's referenced, but it may sometimes make someone think the article fails WP:NPOV. Anyway, please reply on my talk page. Thanks, RyRy5 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. --RyRy5 (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A Featured List contest

Grettings. FL directors Scorpion0422 and The Rambling Man have decided to run a contest for FL contributors. We are trying to get some interest in the process and get some FLs for the under-represented topics. If you would like to learn more about this contest, you can find such information here. If you are uninterested in it, then you could still help out by reviewing FLCs submitted by the entrants. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: [2]

I think a third effort might have legs... Oldelpaso (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That may work! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you ever feel the need to go for it, you are obliged to let me know first. Hope all well... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No joking here, I sincerely believe that you would make a good crat and would be more than happy to nominate. When you nominated TRM I found myself thinking that pretty much everything you wrote in your nomination statement applied equally to yourself. I originally planned on asking once Bradman was done, but seeing as you were talking about RfBs I thought why not mention it now. If at a point in the future you decide to let that link turn blue, let me know. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But only after you've let me know...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Shucks. You guys... <blushes> --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Och aye

I just passed Hibbies at GAN..and left some notes on what it might need for FAC. Care to have a wee look and offer some thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:Fact#Why.3F

Thank you for your reply. I did not mean to be rude, I meant to turn around your original reply in a witty way. I guess that failed to be witty, but I do believe in what I was arguing none the less. I have replied again on the page. Gigs (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Thanks :) It's just my style I guess. No matter your reply, I will probably not reply any more on that thread. I'm not out to "win", I just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from. Happy editing. Gigs (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple

Hey, just thought I'd let you know I decided to go for admin on the Simple English Wikipedia... been hanging out there most days now and I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it's been watching vandals trample all over the place! This is not a canvassing call, it's just FYI. Besides, last time you went over there I seem to recall all you did was harass me....! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

XfD closure, not really. I focussed mainly on WP:CSD and blocking vandals once I got admin. You're branching out? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is that closing XfD's is similar to closing RfA's, and I'm dang good at that. So let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Meade ITProjectGuide-PM

I had a page deleted - not sure why. It's a project management tool - derived from dotProject - so what I did was enter it on the project management tool list (under dotproject) and created it's own page - same format as dotProject...??...I was informed that it was to close to advertising?? Could you help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeadeRubenstein (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on my talkpage

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Matthewedwards's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Readabiliity

Saw your post to Sandy - just hit the Readability gizmo in the toolbox at the FAC - readable prose is 74KB... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

size

I guess images and article size are two issues I'd decided to leave to others at MOS (a necessary rationing policy). Size is a vexed issue, and in practice it's proved to be hard to nail FAC nominations for being too long or short. I guess my attitude tends towards the liberal, but I get a sense when an article is really too long (usually because it rambles). What is your take? TONY (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sry, I thought you were asking in general. Is this in relation to a particular FAC? TONY (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

K, that's what "RC" means, of course (or "RCC"). It's a huge subject, so I'm a little forgiving about length. I'm more concerned about POV (it's from a rather conservative Catholic POV) and prose. It has certainly improved in both respects, but my most recent spot-check (two days ago) is still fresh, so I'm not changing from Oppose yet. Are there any particular sections you'd earmark as needing more summary-style treatment?

Now, concerning the Bradman pre-nom:

• I think you'll be criticised at FAC for puffery in the first para. The third and fourth sentences are just a string of four of them, only one of which is quite uncontestable (the second), IMO. The fourth, harking to Ref 3, is based on questionable methodology: this use of standard deviations is unusual, and I'm concerned at how the mean (better than average in this context) has been calculated—was the scope equivalent for all of those sports? Worried.
• The adulation continues with less intensity during the third and fourth paras. The lead does risk reducing the authority of the article in this way. Can't some of these adulatory reports/opinions be integrated into the main text so that the lead can be presented in a more "factual" tone?
• "Australian" needs linking only on its first occurrence, don't you think?
• "A controversial set of tactics, known as Bodyline, was specifically devised by the England team to curb his batting brilliance." The location might be OK, but it does seem a little arbitrary, stuck at the end of Para 2. Can it possibly be embedded in Para 3?
• Odd spacing of the em dash after "recognised". Is it my browser?
• "Eighteen", but "12".
• "not-out" might be hyphenated for the uninitiated.
• Bradman and bat image: Concerned at why this text is on the info page if the copyright has expired: "Apart from any use permitted by the Copyright Act (including fair dealing) or by the licence contained in the following paragraph, this material may not be downloaded, printed, emailed, stored in cache or otherwise reproduced without the written permission from the State Library of New South Wales." Who cares? Or does it create an issue? Seems contradictory.
• On a quick glance through, the prose really does look of FAC standard. Nice (although there might be a few odd ends, I don't know without scrutinising it.
• "So-honoured"—no hyphen.
• "Note the position of Bradman's left foot in relation to the stumps, an example of how he "used the crease" when batting." MOS no-no. See "Usage". Try "The position of Bradman's left foot in relation to the stumps is an example of how he "used the crease" when batting."
• Possibly a bit choppy in the paragraphing in a few places—unsure how easy it is to fix; e.g., "Later years and legacy".
• I suppose the red stats graph can't be positioned further up? Lots of white space there, which highlights the listiness at the end. Don't know. The olive histogram ... they all look the same on that horizontal scale next to DB. Funny since they do go from 61 to 54. Does it need to be a figure?
• Why are words such as "influenza" linked? We do speak English. I see others—"fraud", embezzlement", "thumb?!" "Fracture" ... well, that's borderline. I'd nip and tuck the linking so that the valuable ones you'd like readers to follow up are not diluted by bright-blue splash. BTW, the date-autolemon is no longer mandatory, and Australian/British formatting would be quite acceptable (but some article authors still insist on the auto).
• "5–Test series"—En dash? Why?

I think it's a very good article, but can't anticipate what objections might be raised. Don't tell them I said it's good—kiss of death. Have you contacted the Bradman Museum in Bowral? They surely have a curator, and if worth their salt, they'd probably be interested in providing feedback on the article. TONY (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. I'll post a simplified version of it to the article talk page and work on it from there. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the RCC FAC talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I've answered the questions you left at my RfA. ffm 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Treasury Tag / Porcupine

Hi Dweller. You adopted this user, and I believe he has vastly improved since last year - excellent work! He has posted a request to WP:AN asking that his strict one-account restriction be lifted very slightly to allow the creation of a second account for editing on public computers. I would say it is fine, but thought your input would be useful. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_withdrawal_of_community_sanction. Cheers. Neıl 龱 15:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Champagne

I would like to know how my page in inappropriate, especially compared to the others pages I have come across. Mine has more info and almost everything has sources. Just look at Lauren Scheff's page and compare it to mine. My article is about a living person, me, and I know what I do so it is all factual. If you want I can have Lauren come sign it. I mean I really don't appreciate having my page deleted after I've spent hours working on it.

I recieved this message: (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject. using TW)

I stated on the page after I repost it the significance and the importance of the subject. Minutes later another user posts I don't have the sources to the things I have posted (and overwrites my importance and significance), not a speedy delete. So someone must be doing their job wrong, because you came along and flagged it for deletion.

Just let me know what I have to change or delete, but please don't delete my whole -entire- page. I may be missing something but I know I'm not infringing anything.

Ricky Champagne (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of the vandalism on my page, i appreciate it. Since your interested in cricket bet you cant wait for the Ashes next year. I dont think you will get whitewashed again:) seriously i think its going to be a great series, the Aussie team has changed a lot. Cheers Monster Under Your Bed ^{(talk 2 me)} 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr R Sparkling Vino

I agree. And have said so on the relevant talk page. As for Bradders, I'll get a quick look at it later I hope. You are well, I hope? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes...again

I've notified Collectonian and the LOCE about it, and now I need your help once more in reviewing the list. Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

This is a formal notification.

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradders

Hey dude, sorry. I've been desperately trying to catch up with the backlog of FLCs which need reviewing and have been caught on one, promoting when others felt it was not only substandard but incomplete. Tsk. I'll def, def, def get onto your note today. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Was off for a few days. Now back to irritate you again :-) Tintin 10:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Copa del Rey

Hello Dweller, I have no problems with the article as it is now. Thank you again for your spotless mediation. Cheers! David (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, i have no problem, that's the best possible scenario. By the way, the logic says that this resolution should be applied to Bilbao page too, shouldn't it?. Greets. (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different RCC help request

Hi Dweller, I'm here to ask for your help with a different RCC help request. I'm operating on a potentially stupid incorrect assumption that part of the problems in the history section of that article might be that it just goes into way too much detail. If we can strip that section down to the basics, it might be tight enough to help us get to NPOV more easily. I'm working solely within what is already in the article (no new sources), and I've managed to cut about 30% of what I consider fluff (for this article) already. Since your objection to the article was primarily based on issues with the history section, I hoped you might be able to take a look at my working proposal and make further cuts, restore data that might be necessary, or make other suggestions for improvements. I'm asking the other editors who opposed partially based on the history section to do the same, and after a while of mulling I'll present it as a proposal at the RCC talk page. Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

Hey Dwell! This RfM is getting close to being accepted by the parties. Would you be happy to take it should all the parties agree to you mediating it? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio

Hey dude. Just in case you missed it, here's Sarumio's elegant response to your offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't stress it. We'll see what happens when his current block expires this afternoon. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed a few of your "edits" (!) but it'll take a while to go through all of the citations so I'll start wading through... should leave you free to focus on the real content issues at FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, quite a few to get through, I'm 1/3 of the way I reckon. I'll have to quit soon to watch the winking ponce destroy the Hun. If you catch my drift. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, wrong fixture. But I'll continue tomorrow... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm up to nearly [100] but I think I'll need at least one more complete run to make sure of consistency. I'll to the end and then we can ask the reviewers if they're happy or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Think I'm done... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve_McKeown

FYI, an article that you proposed for deletion, Steve_McKeown, has now been moved to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve McKeown‎. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)