User talk:Dweller/Archive2015

Aravot nominated for DYK!
—Cerabot (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI
I can't cite chapter & verse, so I'm deleting my comment here, simply to close the matter. Sca (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He can't cite one, let alone the half dozen he's claimed on my talk page, and his edit summary was deceitful. So much for "simply" closing the matter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dweller propeller

 * Wow! I'm deeply touched. I've always wanted my own propeller. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dweller, Dweller, brobeller, banana-fana fo-feller, fee-fi-mo-meller, Dweller! ---Sluzzelin talk  10:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Laxman
Hello, today I met VVS Laxman. He personally asked me to remove that fact. It is not true. --Abhinav619 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this in the appropriate place - the article talk page. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Itinerarium Cambriae
You're very welcome. --Antiquary (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol
First of all, I want to appreciates your immense contributions to wikipedia. Having created over 100 articles on wikipedia, I love to reduce the stress of New page patrollers. If am giving the privilege to patrol my own pages, it will reduce the burden on other editors. I assure you that I will not misuse the autopatrol privilege if my request is giving a consideration. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to, but there seems to be a process to follow. Please see Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  gentle advice

Thank you for quality articles on English football clubs, such as Bayern Munich v Norwich City, for your services as bureaucrat and oversighter, for help to not shouting, for your suggestions for wikistressed editors, for, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (11 January 2009, 19 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 390th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy memories. Thanks. I miss User:PumpkinSky. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So do I, - happy memories of working on Kafka and much more. You can meet him by email, or on the commons where he serves as an admin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal
Hi, although I don't see much direct interest in the theme proposed by User:Beyond My Ken, was it necessary to remove the comment? Tony  (talk)  09:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weird. I have no idea how that happened. Thanks for flagging it up. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bullingdon Club
Hi Dweller, Thanks for the cookies. I have just removed more vandalism edits at the Bullingdon Club article as people are constantly adding unknown names to the list of former club members. Would it be possible to protect this page?--Stmuffin (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

RFA question
Is that the answer you were looking for, or were you looking for me to go further back? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see the ambiguity, and I made it more ambiguous than it needed to be. I was more interested in your current perspective on the dispute. If you wouldn't mind adding that to what you've already written, I'd be glad. I think others may be interested, too. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Manot Cave
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP for Dorothy Murdock
The sources were determined to be reliable, see. Do we reopen the discussion or post a new one? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletition of the article "Stormy Atmosphere"
Good Day,

About the copyright violations - It was a huge misunderstanding actually. The text in the link http://progresja.com/events/mike-terrana-usa-2/?lang=en was actually taken from the original biography of the band. The owners of the website were the ones who copy-pasted it when making the advertisement for the bands' tour with Mike Terrana in December 2014. They don't own the copyright on that text, it's the band's original bio text. I thought it's okay to citate few words from the original bio of he band, when I write about the band. Hope that this explains the issue, therefore my article can be brought back from deletition and resubmitted. Thanks in advance,

Silverray123 (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored the text (it wasn't all a copyright violation) per an identical request at WP:REFUND. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dragonmead
Sorry. No discourtesy was intended. I was actually focused on being repeatedly reverted at Little Ice Age. Sigh. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your note to me
Well, nobody ever asked before... but actually I'm a bit resistant because I come to WP as a relaxation (and as a displacement activity) and try (not always successfully!) to avoid the hassles and arguments that come with responsibility (I get enough of those IRL). Mostly I like adding copy to articles or creating new ones, and more than three-quarters of my edits are to articles; I don't much involve myself in debate and discussion outside the cricket project talk page. As long as there are friendly and sensible admins around (like yourself, TRM and Harrias), I don't feel the need to arm myself with a mop and bucket: I hope that's being "not responsible" rather than "irresponsible". But it was very nice of you to ask... Johnlp (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Johnlp (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward (ref desks problem)
Thanks for your input re: problems on the ref desks. Can you move the process forward? I like your approach, and there is some general consensus that you are right. I had to disagree on a point of detail, but you've pretty much summed it up. IBE (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pretty busy IRL. I'll be back when I can get there. Maybe tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on that move discussion
See my edit here. It's not against any rules to try and make a case using categories you made yourself, but I still think it's not all-together honest on that fellow's part. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 1 Nisan 5775 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fannie Pennington
Before I discovered that you were an administrator, I undid your removal of the 'delete' notice. Ms. Pennington was a fine person, but organizing one facet of one major event (March on Washington), being a fundraiser for a Congressman, and being a 'meet and greet' person to notables do NOT constitute enough notability to warrant an article. Please don't remove the template unless you find some other info that constitutes major notability. Regards Tapered (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies. This is my first involvement with deletion. And I see that you had to decline it because it was contested. I'll make my case via the AfD page. Regards Tapered (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I regret have used up some of your time. Tapered (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it kosher to withdraw and resubmit a AfD nomination? I was deliberately terse with the nomination out of respect for potential readers. I thought the case strong enough on its merits and wanted to be respectful of people's time. I now consider that to have been a major mistake. If allowed to resubmit, the case will be thorough and detailed. Thanks for your time. Tapered (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need. Just go back and restate your case at the AfD. Decent Wikipedians will read all the arguments before making their judgements. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do I update the original statement or add commentary? Tapered (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Either. Just if you do the former, for the sake of transparency, make it clear that you've added to it with a new comment, don't amend or replace the previous one, and do include a date/time stamp. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

After reading WP:IMPORTANT, some of the debate behind its demise and rebirth as WP:N (esp Jim Wales' comments), I've concluded this article is kosher. I based my previous evaluation on reading the discussions @ AfD. In fact I recommended the deletion of an article about an Australian computer scientist, which was removed. In the world of 2015, his body of work is much more objectively notable than Ms. Pennington's memory. I'll be more circumspect and inclusive in future commentary. I still consider this article a monument to parochialism, vanity, and insecurity. That said, given the nature of Wikipeida, the nature of the Internet, and the fact that it's not interfering with anyone getting useful information, it's no big deal. Thanks for all of your time. Tapered (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello, Dweller. When you moved Peter Allen to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:
 * When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
 * Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Peter Allen" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware. You may have noticed in my contribs that I fixed a bunch at the time. The rest will be fixed in time. There's no deadline. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done all the mainspace dabs now, which obviously are the priority. --Dweller (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All that's left now (ie excluding proper disambiguation redirects) is talk/userspace/sandbox junk. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeopardy! episode count
I would respectfully like to ask you to reconsider your comment in favor of deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Robert_K_S/Jeopardy!_episode_count. First, WP:OR and WP:SYN are standards for whether content may be included in Wikipedia articles, not standards for whether essays may be permitted to exist. Second, the essay is not itself OR but instead seeks to explain why the content falls under WP:CALC and is thus not WP:OR. Third, I would respectfully ask you to look at the history of the situation and consider whether the deletion nomination is not part of something that seems to have become a personal campaign on AldezD's part. Apparently, AldezD wants any viewpoint that opposes his to be silenced, and this deletion nomination is consistent with that campaign. It's just wrong. It's not in the spirit of the encyclopedia. Robert K S (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Noted. I'll think that through and review some of the relevant policies. Always happy to rethink my opinion, especially when the approach is as polite as this. NB My thoughts weren't and won't be affected by any personal crusades undertaken by any editor, but based on my understanding of current policy and guidance. And common sense. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well put. I would only ask that you take into account that at the root of this is simple a content dispute.  AldezD wants one episode count listed on the article, whereas I believe (or rather, know to a substantial certainty) that a different episode count is accurate and that AldezD's number is a count of something else entirely.  The source AldezD uses to support his episode count doesn't even state that the number given is the number of episodes produced or aired as of the date given.  My essay explains where AldezD's preferred number comes from and what it really means.  This is not acceptable to him, so he apparently wants even the explanation wiped from Wikipedia.  If editors cannot be free to civilly debate content disputes on the encyclopedia without having those debates subject to deletion by opposing parties, we don't really have a functioning system. Robert K S (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If your depiction is true, it sounds like pretty shabby tactics, but I'll still base my view on policy and guideline. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller
Regarding what you state on your user page and at the top of your talk page about being mistaken for other editors, I was just wondering if you are a legitimate alternative account of Dougweller before I read that. I wondered if you were him after seeing you at User pages on my WP:Watchlist. You must get mistaken for Dougweller often enough to have notes about it on your user page and talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though it seems to happen less often these days, somehow. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that. I've used the Dweller alias for a long time, for obvious reasons. I'm also dweller @ ramtops.co.uk, a homage to Terry Pratchett. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
Why are you doing that? --Glovacki (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus for the mass changes you're making. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will not change anything befor fully consensus, but does anybody opposite to changes like this? --Glovacki (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see any argument opposite it. --Glovacki (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Step by step
Let us move slowly. First, do you agree, that Category:Schools by religious affiliation because Category:Jewish schools is already in Category:Religious schools? --Glovacki (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion at WT:JUDAISM. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion of Category:Schools by religious affiliation is not related with WT:JUDAISM --Glovacki (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True. Then start a discussion in an appropriate place within the Cat pages, and place notices on the affected WikiProjects' pages. --Dweller (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I already wrote here Category talk:Schools by religious affiliation. I understand that I can do change, if then anybody has cont-arguments, we discuss. Does anyone have opposition with deletion this category? --Glovacki (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Celebrate

 * Thanks. But you do know that after noon the joke's on you? --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Challenge
Hi Dweller. You have a new challenge. Enjoy! --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

MFD
You liked that close, didn't you? I had to take a real bird's eye view over everything a few times before I figured out a way that could makes everyone's point viable and still gives a resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I liked the way you explained yourself. And the fact that you did. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry i was such a jerk!
2601:7:6580:5E3:44:7ED6:F7B4:B624 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure who you are, or what you've done, but if it was something you did in article space, please undo it or don't do it again. If it was something personal to me, I'm sure it wasn't a problem and thank you. --Dweller (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No I just got all upset on reference desk. I'm sorry. Rich Peterson.2601:7:6580:5E3:742B:A107:5621:8658 (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry about that. I think I was slightly too sniffy in my comment and probably deserved it. Kind of you to apologise. I'm sorry for being less helpful than usual, too. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment
Although it is generally not a good idea to do so, I slightly tweaked your comment because it could have been read as "oppose ThaddeusB" instead of "oppose removal". Naturally, if you did mean if something else, please revert me and refactor for clarity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work! --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies...
... if I came across as short on AN this morning, it wasn't my intention. I'd certainly be interested to know why you asked which bureaucrat gave the information, as I've said the same thing a large number of times to different blocked users. Worm TT( talk ) 13:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology more than accepted. I'm having an interesting time IRL and my reply (replies?) could have been less obscure. I was trying to discover two things: if the enquiry was recent and/or with a global renamer. I'm particularly keen as I've seen some on and offwiki discussions about our RTV policy, and how it's been affected by the downgrading of Crats' renaming rights. We actually urgently need to sort this out as it's something of an anomaly. --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

United Synagogue
Hey there D, I'm wondering if you can help me make sense of whatever the edit war is on. The English seems less than optimal and the TL;DR style of the edit request (I declined as unclear) has me befuddled. (the one with the edit request) is clearly an WP:SPA trying to add content to the article that he feels is appropriate and properly sourced - albeit negative in nature. I think he's going for a WP:NOTCENSORED addition to the article which would possibly be appropriate. keeps reverting these additions (perhaps because they feel they WP:OWN the article or something, I'm not sure. Mike does have three years and 70ish edits more experience (56 for Iw to 124 for MS).  seems to have also contributed to a talk page discussion (signed as an IP accidentally) on it and seems to understand the content that is trying to be added. Since you're the admin that protected this page, I was hoping you would be willing to work with me to figure out the best course of action.  Thanks. —   12:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

___

Hi there, both of you. Apologies for not knowing the correct syntax for getting both your attentions at the same time, but I wanted to get you both involved in the United Synagogue page 'edit war' that is currently underway between myself (I.W) and Mike Schwartz613.

I have tried my best, in keeping with other religious organizational website entries on wikipedia, to keep all criticisms to those that are 1) interdependently made, 2) verifiable and sourced by respectable news organizations / historians and 3) have at every stage agreed that a section be ascribed to 'refuting' the 'accusations' (or historically documented facts, as my many, many, sources see it). Mike Schwartz613 however is engaged in simple censorship. To aid your understand of the structure of my attempted additions, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Deputies_of_British_Jews which is another pseudo-political-religious organization that has garnered criticisms due to the materials and viewpoints it espouses being criticized for 'overstepping' the line between religious guidance and overt political speech, designed to push a viewpoint which not all subscribe to.

My attempt is to ADD information, not 'censor'. Please assist.

And again, apologies for 'crashing' this space, I'm an infrequent user of Wikipedia (financial contributor nonetheless) and wish to share my knowledge of the issue at hand. I.W

_____

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.54.211 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened
You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Interwikier
Dear Dweller,

I imagine you have been following events at United Synagogue. Interwikier has just reinserted another irrelevant diatribe to the article, which I reverted about five minutes ago, though I imagine he has already rereverted.

I thought I would post a complaint about him at Arbcom, or wherever things like this are done. But in my eight or nine years of editing in the most dicey of topic areas, I have never posted such a complaint, and have no idea where to begin.

So I leave this in your capable hands. Do as you see fit.

Regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Red link
Hi, someone just created a user page for me. I don't want a user page and prefer having a red link. Could you delete it for me please? Thanks. Spc 21 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. And super done. --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua_Scott/AfD
I replied at User talk:Joshua_Scott –Joshua Scott 15:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A question
Hello Dweller. Is this edit an unintended mistake or has there been a change in best practice? It seems to me that your notification belongs on the user's talk page opposed to the user page. If I am mistaken in this regard, please advise me of my error, if the mistake belongs to you, please move the post off of the protected user page to its corresponding talk page. Thank you for giving attention to this request.--John Cline (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It was an automated edit gone wrong. How odd. Thanks for telling me. --Dweller (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Protected by the Wiki-verse
As I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, what makes it even funnier is that claims she has been warned. Unless of course the original notice is what is now considered to be a warning.  Typically pathetic response.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And now a pathetic wrist slap with some level of confusion added. Utterly pointless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy Families complete. I claim my £10.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about getting the shiny new Edgar Le Bastard article onto Main Page instead? --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, who's Le Bastard in the black? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

motorsport terms
Greetings. Just wanted to let you know that the term "pole-sitter" is very common and accepted in the motorsport community without it being referenced to toilet humor. Yes, there are other ways of wording it, but in the event of an overuse of one term (ie: "from pole position" over and over), then it's proper to spread out the terminology. Not unlike spreading out "started from third place" with "in the second row," and so on.

I just felt I should explain because your revision summary at 2015 Monaco Grand Prix made it sound like you were unfamiliar with the term in a motorsport setting. My apologies if you are though. Cheers. Twirlypen (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I watch a lot of Formula 1 and have never heard the term. Perhaps it's American slang? In any case, it's much clearer the way I've left it, especially as I added a wikilink. --Dweller (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It probably is American slang.. likely shorthand for "sitting in pole position." I am from the other side of the pond and I know I work with a lot of Europeans on the project, so I'm used to having my content reworded. Haha. Twirlypen (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 8-) --Dweller (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Carra Rud map
This is interesting and seems to note quite a few features that aren't mentioned in the article..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastico! I'll take a squint properly later. --Dweller (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All done, methinks? --Dweller (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)/archive1
Am looking now, migh be worth some other fitbaw watchers taking a squiz....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can pop in, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Took me a while, but I've started now. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok cool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My very grateful thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

William de Manecestra
Is obviously NOT supposed to be at this page since the article is about John de Derby. Can you sort this out please? I tried to move it but couldn't. The William de Manecestra name is Latinish for William de Manchester, who may or may not merit an article, since he was elected Bishop of Lichfield but did not actually take office. The WdM name should still be a redlink both versions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't move it because we already have an article called John de Derby. Sounds like we need two disambiguated pages and make John de Derby into a disambig page. And speedy William! --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a mop holder! Mop! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea how to disambiguate the two Johns. You're the medievalist! Medieval! --15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, according to this John de Derby was not Dean of Lichfield. He was archdeacon of Barnstaple though. The John de Derby on the WIlliam de Manecestra page, however, has another issue - the British History online ref given (to page 219) is to a section on pre-Conquest bishops and does not support the information given. The flicker image isn't a reliable source. I cleaned up as I could. I suspect that the WdM should actually be WdM ... and who ever created it botched it, but given that there is no reliable source given for it... just nuke it? We're hampered by the fact that there is no Fasti for the Litchfield diocese out yet covering the years 1066-1300. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Workshopping bureaucrat activity requirements

 * (Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xenotalk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I'll take a squint. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened

 * Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xenotalk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Bureaucrat discussion notification
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA. Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

DYK hook
"that in 1998, the English cricketer Jason Lewry took a hat-trick with deliveries in two innings?" about to hit the main page. I had to read this twice and then the source of the article before it became crystal clear to me. Is it obvious to you? I would have thought perhaps "across" instead of "in"? Dunno... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely "across". --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitic cliché
That Jews are trying to keep their bloodline pure while attempting to defile the bloodlines of (the inherently superior) White Europeans is an old anti-Jewish Aryan supremacist cliché. According to that cliché the slave trade was a Jewish thing and (note the irony) also desegregation. According to the same cliché the Jews also invented pornography, gay rights, Marxism, Communism, Capitalism, Anarchism, modern banking and the modern concepts of finance and the economy, the "spurious" concept of human rights and of race equality, and encourage "miscegenation" between Blacks and Whites, all for more or less the same purpose, which is to weaken the superior white race and by so doing become masters of the world. It's a huge conspiracy you see. Elements of it go back to the "Protocols" (or even before), then the Nazis, and from time to time new twists are added. Check the internet. If someone has not yet invented that Jews descend from reptilian humanoids from outer space, it's just a matter of time, someone will for sure. As to supposedly keeping their bloodlines "pure" one has only to see how Indian, Chinese, Central Asian, Morrocan, Iranian, Yemeni, Ethiopian Jews all look exactly alike and how pure their "bloodline" is, to see how much sense that all makes. Those people are not exactly troubled by facts and logic. Therefore there's no purpose logically "debating" such people. It's probably better to just deny them recognition as WP does and you just did. Contact Basemetal   here  14:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gosh. What a load of cock. Thanks for explaining. I can't quite believe that, erm, anyone could believe that. By "slave trade" I presume you mean the trade out of Africa to the Americas? --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. This particular angle was, incidentally, adopted by the Nation of Islam (see for example The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews), or the other way round. Hence this interesting (and somewhat amusing) three way configuration: according to Blacks (especially the Nation of Islam, Black supremacists, Black anti-Semites, etc) both Jews and Aryan supremacists oppress Blacks, according to Aryan supremacists both Jews and Blacks are complicit in trying to dilute the purity of the White race in order to enslave it, according to Jews both Blacks and Aryan supremacists hate them. As far as the Jews in the slave trade I believe there were some families in Bordeaux that were active in the slave trade and who were, if not Jewish, at least descended from Spanish and Portuguese Jews. I don't know if their prominence in the slave trade went beyond what would be expected from their proportion to the general population, but that wouldn't surprise me since Jews have, in many types of activity, more prominence than would be expected from their numbers (be it music, show business, banking, physics, medicine, politics, or whatever). But the particular spin that the Aryan supremacists (and the Nation of Islam) put on it is that it wasn't just individuals who happened to be Jews and who were in it for the money, like any other businessman of that time engaged in that sort of immoral activity (which made them no more nor less immoral than the businessmen of Christian origin who were doing it), it was "the Jews"... Contact  Basemetal   here  16:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Redmond
Hello, long time no speak. Hope you are well. Are you sure about Redmond? The last thing in the international section has him scoring in May 2014 in a qualifier for the 2015 tournament, and I can't see anything elsewhere about him playing in it. I know he did, but didn't know he was picked for the team of the tournament, or indeed that there was such a thing. Perhaps I should be more tolerant and source the thing myself. Keep thinking I ought to make a bit more effort to keep pages like Nathan Redmond and Jordon Mutch, and the rather lower-profile ones like Krystian Pearce, up to date, but never manage to get round to it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Robbie Brady
That's not what the reference said. It says he'll be unveiled tonight and that he'll probably make his debut on Saturday. Until he's officially confirmed as having made a transfer, I don't think we can say for sure that it's a done deal. – PeeJay 16:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right about playing, but it does say "Norwich City have completed a reported £7m deal" and "Brady’s protracted summer transfer has finally been tied up". Heck. I'll leave it with you. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess, but we often hear the media saying a transfer is done and then one club pulls out at the last minute. Personally, I think we should always leave it to the club to announce a player's signing, either explicitly by issuing a press statement or implicitly by adding the player to the squad list on their website (or selecting him for a competitive fixture – that would definitely do it). I don't think there are any regulations about players having to be contracted to a particular club for them to play for that club in a friendly. – PeeJay 19:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ... Noises coming out of Carra Rud tonight show you to be the wiser man. --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal
A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk
Hi Dweller. I've just updated Special:AbuseFilter/714 in an attempt to stop the reference desk troll. Would you mind if I unprotected the page again? It should stop their current postings so the protection shouldn't be needed for now and I can alter it as needed if it stops being effective in its current form. Sam Walton (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already done it, hope you don't mind too much D-man, of course if you do, you could always take me to Arbcom... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. Where's the link for filing an Arbcom case? --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, it could be here? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road FAC
I'll try and take a look over the weekend.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you asked so nicely... FAC isn't really somewhere I'm comfortable (not sure where is, these days, the amount of lunatics trying to run the asylum :-) but I'll have a look at it at the weekend or monday. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You stars, both of you, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA. Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

Help yourselves
Enjoy. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an outrage; we all know that the only acceptable accompaniment to cocoa is marshmallows. Alakzi (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You could be right. As a Brit, I should probably have opted for a Kit Kat. --Dweller (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dweller, thanks for the refreshments and welcoming atmosphere! There is something I've wanted to post somewhere but haven't known where, so will take a chance here. I spent a lot of time looking at diffs & contribs rather than reading other opposes, and wanted to post a lengthy comment. In the end, though, I decided against the lengthy comment and instead went for a shorter "such and such said it better" type comment, because by that point there were clear indications that Liz preferred not to see more diffs posted publicly. My sense is that because I was trying to be respectful, while at the same time posting a "not yet" type oppose, it comes across as lightweight, and I'm wondering whether something similar happened a few other people. I hadn't considered that weight of argument = number of words, but if necessary could probably produce many more words than my comment on the RfA. Not sure, though, if I want to go down that route. Not sure either, if any of this makes sense, but thought I'd drop by. Thanks, again, for the welcome. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a daft comment at all. It's actually a really good one. One of the things Crats often give less weight to in a close call is opinions that define themselves as "weak". But I've never seen a Cratchat that I can remember that weighed "not yet"s lightly, and we definitely don't give more weight for verbosity. Not yet is in my book a totally valid oppose and I'd be surprised if a Crat took a different view. Being respectful at RfA is one of the best and kindest things to do, especially when opposing. I wish everyone would bear that in mind, even while opposing as strenuously as they like. --Dweller (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a difficult balance to achieve, but important I think. Thanks for the reply and the snack.  Victoria (tk) 21:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dweller, I appreciate the offer and the munchies (), but after revisiting the talk page of the crat chat today I am disturbed. Whatever the gravitas of the bureaucrat position, RfA is supposed to be a process to determine the will of the community, and you bureaucrats are tasked with interpreting it; the suggestion of discounting votes undermines that, all the more given that you focused only on those on one side. I do consider the expectation of diffs in oppose comments an escalation from custom - in my experience they would normally be elicited in discussion when the editor's position was thought ill-founded - and a disturbing move in the direction of adversarial argument. Moreover, the crat chat as a whole, and not only with the disagreement as to what the baseline should be, has gone close to re-running the RfA. In response, people on the talk page are now not only rerunning the RfA but imputing motivations to other editors, and the candidate has felt she has to come out and defend herself. This is a mess and it's shaken my confidence in the bureaucrats and in specific people. It's a shame because on the whole I think the RfA was well played and respectful on both "sides". I used "vote" above because there are percentage threshholds in RfAs, but I think it's dangerous to the community and specifically to getting participation, and honest rather than tactical participation, at RfA for it to be seen as an adversarial process. This is more of a moan than a rant and more a rant than a query or a suggestion, but if you bureaucrats can think of any way to cool things down, please do. I'm sorry for the candidate feeling like a rag in a tug o' war, I'm sorry for the other candidate running at this fraught time, and I have concerns for our community after all this laying bare of fractures. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . You raise a lot (and I mean "lot") of important issues. I think it was an excellent Cratchat and the accompanying discussion was similarly excellent. It has raised some problems that have arisen over the years (such as my perception that the community can non longer be assumed to have consensus for NOBIGDEAL) and some that have never had a proper discussion. What is not a problem and has not changed is the Bureaucrats' ability to give less weight to certain arguments. Weak supports also receive less weight.
 * I appreciate your comments about how the Crats can cool things. I'd actually like to do the opposite - stir up the can of worms. As promised at the Cratchat talk page, I'll soon post some discussion points related to this RfA in an attempt to ascertain what consensus is on them. I do hope you'll participate. It'll be advertised there, at BN and Talk:RfA. --Dweller (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, although we appear to disagree on the way forward. I had intended to leave the project some months ago; I haven't been completely successful in doing so, but although if I do return I have warned folks that I will have to be more (wiki-)political in my focus, I wouldn't want to take it so far as participating in a fundamental discussion on RfA and the related concensus issues. For one thing, I had WT:RFA on my watchlist for a year or two before I closed that tab on my computer, and unless there have been unimaginably revolutionary statements there in the last couple-three months, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the reform proposals that have been put forward and the varying views among editors. There's gridlock in that area, partly because there are widening divides between editors - in my perception - and I regret to say that this RfA has further widened them. I'm now very disheartened, on top of my prior reluctance to become yet another activist admin - something the project really doesn't need. So no, I don't see myself participating in that particular venue even if I do come back. Sorry to have bothered you. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . A few things. 1) Please don't leave. I don't recall crossing paths with you before, but you come across as reasonable and articulate and the project needs people with those qualities 2) Your user page makes it clear that you've created loads of content. Ignore the wikipolitics and stick to that? I try to spend most of my team developing FAs or other decent quality content (drop in to my latest FAC?) 3) I hope this hasn't already been too patronising, but at the risk of patronising-overload, maybe this essay will help? User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors 4) There's absolutely no bother :-) --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, may I have an opinion?
Hi there, you don't know me, but you're a bureaucrat, so I figure that makes a person like you the perfect person to ask this. About a year and a half ago, I started a Editor review for myself and got basically zero feedback. So, I'm going to lay this out. I have aspirations of being an admin one day, however with my history, it's made it difficult, even though the immaturity that brought me to that ban is long gone as I've aged and matured naturally. Basically, I was hoping you could take the time and give me a bit of a mini-editor review. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 03:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (butting in) you're gonna have a tough time with that past, but is not impossible. Gain cred by expanding articles on subjects you know...such as baseball. For instance, you could try buffing up Tampa Bay Lightning, Tampa Bay Rays or Tampa Bay Buccaneers to GA status. A few of us can offer some assistance. Keep an eye out to review or help at WP:PR - anyone who lists an article there will be extremely grateful for any feedback. is another baseball buff ...and bureaucrat too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with much of what Cas says. ER has been pretty much dead for years, so don't be surprised that you got no feedback. Here's some advice I wrote a long time ago: User:Dweller/Tips_for_aspiring_future_admins The bit about ER is about the only thing I'd change. In your case, your RfA will be bumpier than most, as you have a very definite track history. As I put in that essay, don't try to hide it. Some people will for sure oppose anyone with a block record like that. Others may actually be quite impressed by a demonstration of hard work, time put in, honesty about the past and a good dose of humility. One last thing: an overt desire to become an admin puts off some Wikipedians. Chill about the title. Look continually to become a better contributor and the admin thing will come, sort of naturally. If it doesn't (and I'll say now that I've not looked at your contribs), it might be that it's not for you. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done
Thank you. That I can recall, it was the most difficult one I've ever been involved in. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfA Crat Chat
Hello, Dweller,

I just wanted to thank you and all of the bureaucrats who participated in the bureaucrat chat after my RfA was closed. There were a lot of votes and comments to go through along with the enormous amount of content on the crat chat talk page. I appreciate the time and care the bureaucrats took to consider all of the arguments and come to a consensus.

I never imagined that my RfA would be at all contentious or have such a big turnout. Although I hope you don't have many close call RfAs in the future, I know if you do, that Wikipedia's bureaucrats will find their way to a decision. Thank you again for your work in bringing this RfA to a close. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Friendship Trophy


The article Friendship Trophy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no extensive coverage, not even a real thing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget this, the prod has already been removed and the editor in question, has been blocked.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Bureaucrats
Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/August 31, 2015
Also pinging User:The Rambling Man. Gratz on getting this through in time, guys. The lead (copied to the TFA page) is currently 1455 characters; the limit for TFA (so far) is 1300 characters, and 1250 would be better. Would either of you like to trim it a bit? - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now down to 1354, almost there. - Dank (push to talk) 10:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, around 1250 now, thanks much TRM. - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

אצטדיון
It would be best not to create articles in Hebrew when you cannot write in Hebrew. Articles that are 4 words only are doomed anyway. all the best. --Yoavd (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was managing to, but someone deleted the article while I was working on it. It'd be lovely if you could create a stub article there for me. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Carrow Road
Sorry I didn't get a chance to re-visit after you fixed my annoying niggles - I was on holiday. Glad to see it managed to get promoted anyway.

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no worries, old boy and thanks for the nice message. --Dweller (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The good old days...
Re your comment "I love to hark back to the good old days when everything was just wikilovely, which never existed..."

For the record, those "good old days" actually did exist, but for the simple reason that our numbers were so few. At the end of 2001 there were maybe 50 regular editors, and another 50 sporadics. It was possible to know every single editor, to follow every single discussion across the entire project, and still make useful contributions. RC updated 20-30 times per hour, and you could leave for a few hours and come back to see every change that had been made while you were away.

Obviously things changed when the population grew to the point where such intimacy was no longer possible, which (for me) started in mid-2002. Naturally there is no point bemoaning this - had we stayed at that population, we would only just be hitting 200K articles by now, and they'd be only marginally less miserable in quality.

OK, I'll go back underground now. Cheers Manning (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What a charming message, thanks! I really like the way I'm now feeling like a 10 year newbie. Feel free to help yourself to some free spectacles. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the opposite - some pretty awful behaviour from Those In Positions of Power from '05 to '08, which is one of the reasons I ran for arbcom. Thankfully the people in power became more responsible or were replaced by more responsible ones....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There were some oddities in my early days, but it does seem that those very early days were halcyon. Imagine the fun of starting the article on Ant. And with a terrible joke, no less. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha - interesting. Dunno. the polishedness of what we create now at FAC I find impressive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the old FAs I've looked at have made my jaw drop. Some of that is that they've degraded over time, but mostly that'd be a charitable view. I think well-intentioned RfA !voters asking for 1FA inadvertently prevented standards from rising faster, because I think the fall-off in 1FA demands just preceded the massive jump in FA standards [OR alert]. Also, I remember there was this mad dash to try to match German Wikipedia's % of FAs. Why, I have no idea. I think we've got the standard about right now - very demanding, but definitely achievable. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. My impression was a bit different. I never thought things went backwards as such, merely improved slowly and steadily over time. Agree about being demanding but achievable; only thing is this promotes improving narrower rather than broader articles due to the difficulties of covering all bases with the latter.....which is why I pushed the Core Contest.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying things went backwards, I'm saying that progress was slow until 1FA in particular became old hat. The Core Contest is a terrific idea. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah
Just wish you would have talked before deletion. No one on here does that. I would have liked to save it at least for my info. It was all truth. Kaoszulu (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alex Neil
I've reverted your move - undiscussed, controversial, and the standard has always been to still list them as 'footballer' even if they are (debatable) more prominent as a manager. GiantSnowman 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gosh. The move was discussed at the talk page, which you have now moved back to Talk:Alex Neil (footballer). If Alex Ferguson was a disambiguation page, would you move the manager's article to Alex Ferguson (footballer)? --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding Let to know No result or Abandoned. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please help me to resolution by your comments at DRN.  Srinu  ( Talk ''' 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:77.202.224.9
Thanks for your kind comments at the talk page for an earlier IP address of mine. I am still smarting from the treatment I received on Wikipedia in March, but maybe I'll get over it and come back. But even yesterday, I was accused of vandalism on Virgil van Dijk simply because I made an error and was too slow correcting it. Although the accusation was grudgingly withdrawn, I received no apology. I used to enjoy editing here but Wikipedia has attracted too many people who have an attitude problem and have forgotten to AGF and that we do this in our own spare time. Editing as an IP is a damn site harder and slower than as a registered user, what with the Capcha device to prevent spam and the lack of access to all the tools I had previously. I might come back one day, who knows. Thanks again and keep up the good work on Sir Alf Ramsey. Best wishes. 77.130.197.6 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC) (formerly known as Bikeroo).
 * Come on back when you're ready, we'll be happy to have you. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, some of us would be. CUs, for instance, already hate you for editing while logged out, because it can only be that you are "avoiding scrutiny". Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Some users have good reason for editing while logged out. Others do not. The CUs are well aware of this. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please note that I currently cannot complete edit summaries when doing most of my editing. Sorry if this is annoying. It's annoying me. I also can't do subject/headlines for new talkpage sections, without just editing them into the whole page. See Village_pump_(technical) --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:NQ --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I love this page. here is a kitten to show it.

Life Of A Wiki Amatuer (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Requests from TT
Please move Help:Contents/Browse to Help:Menu.

To match its actual title.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the redirect Help:Directory, to make way for a move.

Thank you again.

The Transhumanist 13:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,. I'd have been happy to help, but I was offwiki at the time. I presume it's all done now? --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, not done yet, though I'm not in a hurry. Just a couple janitorial tasks for cleaning up the help department, to pave the way for adjusting page names to match the page titles.  Glad to see you are still an active Wikipedian. The Transhumanist 04:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to do these tasks. Can you point me to the discussions, so I can be sure I'm not screwing something up? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There aren't any discussions. But they are simple non-controversial cleanup (to fix awkward page names).  Easy to reverse if needed. The Transhumanist 07:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done the first one. Please check I've not killed anything before I try the second. --Dweller (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC) ? --Dweller (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm here. Got side-tracked on WP:TOTD (helping JoeHebda to get up to speed on it).


 * Didn't expect you to move all the subpages too. (I figured I was going to have to move those). Thank you!


 * Help:Menu and its subpages work fine.


 * I'm in the process of hunting down the links to them, and updating those.


 * Ready for the deletion of redirect Help:Directory. I'll be moving/renaming Help directory to that destination. The Transhumanist 09:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Move complete.


 * I've tracked down and updated most of the main Help:Contents/Browse links to Help:Menu. Will do the same for links to the directory. The Transhumanist 11:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  The Transhumanist 12:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have done it without you. Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

London Bus Routes
Hi Dweller, I'm not too worried about your bus route's. Having lived in London, all the better. What I was objecting too was user 82.13.52.100, who seemed to created two alternate bus routes wiping out somebody else's work. Is he genuine? scope_creep (User talk:scope_creep) 18:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you see redirects?
The Tip of the day/January 6 provides a way to tell them apart from regular links. The Transhumanist 01:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't really understand the question, never mind the answer. Go gently with me, I'm an IT thicko. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can update one of your .js files (like personal settings) to run various scripts, one of which displays redirects in a different colour. I run one which displays dabs in yellow, redirects in green etc.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean in Watchlist? Why would that be useful? PS Hello. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they mean in an article, so that you can tell if a wikilink is to a redirect or to another article. I'm also not sure why that would be useful and I worry some of our more OCD editors might be tempted to make sure all the links in an article are blue in breach of WP:NOTBROKEN. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The tip I suggested provides code to be added to your .css page. When you install it, MediaWiki displays links that are redirects as green instead of blue, regardless of what kind of page you are looking at. On the watchlist, in articles, talk pages, etc. The Transhumanist 08:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How are they useful? They improve your wiki awareness. So you notice things that you wouldn't have otherwise. Like article titles that are out of date (e.g., Burma), or that have shifted from their original context (e.g., List of basic chemistry topics).  Or when a topic doesn't have an article, but doesn't show up as a redlink because it has been redirected (e.g., formal reasoning, and absolute knowledge) – in this way, redirects can indicate possible future articles (and if they are green, you can see that they don't have an article of their own yet). You can also see when a Main article link is not the real title.  Just to name a few. The Transhumanist 20:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What prompted all of this? --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the request thread above, I guessed that you didn't have color-differentiated links, and I thought you might find them useful. Also, I'm active in the Tip of the day project again, so I'm in a tip giving mood. :) By the way, I didn't even know about the js for yellow dabs, so now I'm doubly glad I brought the subject up! The Transhumanist 09:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

note
I tried. :-) — Ched : ?  15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Football
Can you help improving Liga II, to create the missing seasons. Thank you ! --Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'm not sure what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean to create the football league seasons. The second one is not created yet : 1935–36 Divizia B.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm still rather puzzled. I don't really like football seasons articles, even for countries that I know something about, as they don't feel that encyclopedic to me. Nonetheless, I accept that consensus is that they may be notable. However, more fundamentally, I don't know anything about football in Romania, so I'm not an obvious choice for this request. Why not create it yourself? --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will create it myself, but there is a lot to edit, and I current write in Cupa Romaniei, and other articles, I have many to improve, at least can you edit here : EMF miniEURO, there are only a few seasons missing. Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Why not find someone who edits here on Romanian football? I already have a lengthy to-do list that I'm not getting to. --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

EMF miniEURO is not Romanian Football, is European, I will try find someone else for Romanian Football. What kind of football do you edit ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See User:Dweller/Featured --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OTD
I don't see anything wrong with the term Franco-American.
 * – Due in part to the spaghetti connection, it sounds kind of silly to American ears. Yorktown ended the American Revolutionary War, after all – though arguably that should be called the American War of Independence. Sca (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blame American ignorance if that term means spaghetti. This is, after all, English language Wikipedia, and doesn't and shouldn't be tailored specifically for a US audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you expect from a squalid American such as Sca (talk) – ?

I don't understand the relevance of your second sentence - what do you mean? --Dweller (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's generally referred to as the American Revolution, not the Franco-American one.
 * However, QPQ, we could make it Germano-British forces. Sca (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true. But there was a French army at Yorktown. In a similar way to the Battle of Marston Moor, in the so-called First English Civil War (which wasn't the first) when an English force was defeated by an Anglo-Scottish one. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: War (2007)
If Tom Lone is Still alive, then Are you Saying that Tom Lone changed his [Identity Card Name] to Rogue at the End of this Film? 50.173.3.162 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Hi . I've not seen the film - I just quoted our article. Sorry I can't be more helpful! By the way, why not register for an account? It's free, takes about 2 minutes and really helps with communication. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

re User:Wickethewok
Per your comment here, apparently they are still 'around'. Did you notice this edit? 220  of  Borg 05:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. Thanks for the heads-up. You're very on the ball! --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, er, I was updating the wp:Missing Wikipedians page, and often the "last edit" date is wrong because editors have come back.So I was checking a few contribution histories, noticed Wickethewok had been back which took me to their talk page, where I saw a comment by you, and your link there took me to the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Archive. So I dropped my note here. 220  of  Borg 10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh. Nice work. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Clio the Muse
Can you please expand on why you did this? There is nothing at all unpleasant about that exchange and it should not have been deleted. It is clear to me, and probably to the other editors on that thread as well, that Clio the Muse was a fake. That much is proved by the evidence presented on the thread. Any "unpleasantness" resides in the fact that someone pulled the wool over our eyes for so long. So please could you explain and revert your deletion. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Because grave-dancing and attempted outing are both unacceptable. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying. There is no grave to dance upon (Clio never existed, remember), and I would have thought that exposing a purported Wikipedia editor as a sham was a perfectly normal and natural thing to do around here. See also . --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, if you don't understand how this is gravedancing and outing (and, to be frank, some of it borders on creepy stalking), I can't possibly explain it to you. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You really don't get it, do you. There is no-one to stalk. Still lovesick, are we? --Viennese Waltz 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, stop now before it becomes playground behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First you say stop it, now you say continue discussion. Which is it to be? --Viennese Waltz 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I said stop talking like you're in a playground. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And your edit summary on the fake user's page is quite wrong. The deletion most certainly is unexplained.  Dweller has refused to give his reasons for doing so in this discussion, beyond spurious claims of grave-dancing and stalking which I have shown to be completely false.  So where do we go from here? --Viennese Waltz 16:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go and do something useful (like editing something other than a "fake user talk page"), and I'll do the same (as I have been doing for the past ten or so years). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo
User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Craig Kieswetter/archive1
Thanks for your thoughts on the England Test results lists, they remain very much a work in progress overall! In the meantime, I wonder if you've got the time and inclination to take a look over Craig Kieswetter for me, which I've nominated for FA status. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, . Btw, did you see my suggested bit for the Lead that I left on your usertalk? --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Eugh, yes, I'd forgotten all about that! I'm a bit all over the place at the moment, chasing my own tail. Hopefully I'll get some work done on that tonight, although I think my wife has other plans! <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 10:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some unexpected time off work (sick daughter) has given me a chance to do some work on both Kieswetter and the England Test results today, any further thoughts would be appreciated. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 11:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Templates
Thanks for the welcome. I removed the whole thing from yesterday's page & reposted it on today's page. Please cast your vote over there as well. Chris8924 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you caste your vote yet [over here. I deleted the earlier post since you said it should be on today's page. So, need your vote again.[[User:Chris8924|Chris8924]] (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
Dear Dweller,

I boldly moved List of British ordnance terms to History of British artillery, 1870-1945.

Someone requested that I move it back. You can see his request here.

But he did a cut and paste move over the redirect.

Please delete List of British ordnance terms so that I can move History of British artillery, 1870-1945 back to its original name (to preserve the edit history).

Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * By the way, I totally forgot about the talk page. To complete the revert, Talk:History of British artillery, 1870–1945 needs to be moved over the redirect at Talk:List of British ordnance terms.


 * Please. The Transhumanist 12:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was fast. Thank you. The Transhumanist 09:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Security review RfC
Hi Dweller, was this supposed to be support or oppose? :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Helpful, thanks. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I don't seem to have been asked anything. You've covered my point nicely. NPOV doesn't mean we should label people's opinions in ways they don't agree with, without balancing them. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference desk
WP:RBI. --Dweller (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good approach to vandalism. The Transhumanist 15:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Move and deletion request
The article Existential risk from artificial general intelligence has been almost entirely rewritten, and no longer matches the scope of its title.

Therefore, please do the following:


 * 1) Move Existential risk from artificial general intelligence to Existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence.  The discussion on this can be found here.
 * 2) Delete the resulting redirect, to make way for a new article with the original title.  That topic is no longer covered, and there is plenty of material to create an article on it.

Thank you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That helps a lot. The Transhumanist 02:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tats
Dear Dweller, I appreciate your repeated weighing in on the increasingly cumbersome discussion known as WP:RD/L. As I suspect our helpful native-Hebrew-speaking IP user is a bit naive about the culture of tattoos, I left some explanatory remarks where they might do some good without further inflating the RD discussion. Overall I feel relieved not be badgering my ever-busy colleagues in the translation community to help solve this bit. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As ever, your responses shed light without heat. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

HI Dweller
What is it that you want to talk to me about? - LionsRule125 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fitbaw...
There are tae fitbaw articles at FAC....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll choose life. --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
 * Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not?
 * Your Answer: Yes
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments: I don't think there is a numeric value to be put on evidence of competency and trustworthiness. Obviously, 1 edit would be insufficient to demonstrate either, but equally, 32,000 vanilla edits wouldn't be enough either.


 * Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments: As Q1.


 * Q#3. Arbs...
 * A: should not be an admin
 * B: should preferably not be an admin
 * C: can be but need not be an admin
 * D: should preferably be an admin
 * E: must be or have been an admin
 * F: must currently be an admin
 * Your Single-Letter Answer:
 * Your Comments: Again, I'd decline to answer. Being an admin is a sign that at one point the community trusted the user, but some current admins would calamitously fail RfA today, and some non-admins who would be excellent candidates decline to stand, for a variety of reasons, sadly, often because many RfA participants behave poorly.


 * Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin.
 * Your Numeric Answer:
 * Your Comments: See Q1 and Q3


 * Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you support this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported:
 * Your Comments: I supported all of the good candidates. Of course.


 * The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username: User:Dweller
 * General Comments:


 * Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional:  which candidates did you oppose this year, and why?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed:
 * Your Comments: I opposed all the bad candidates. Of course.


 * Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now?  Who?
 * Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates:
 * Your Comments: All Wikipedians who in December 2016 are demonstrably good candidates for Arbcom.


 * Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections?  In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year?
 * Your Answer: I care about Wikipedia, I think ArbCom is important (though in no way the be-all and end-all) and I think every user's voice is important. Including mine.
 * Your Comments:


 * Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be:
 * A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions
 * Definitely helpful. You can see their thinking on relevant matters.
 * B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions
 * Definitely helpful. You can see their thinking more generally and I like to see evidence of interaction, collaborative working, making arguments and listening to arguments.
 * C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language
 * Irrelevant.
 * D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English
 * Not very relevant, except that taking the time and trouble to explain things to people is a good sign.
 * E: working on policies/guidelines
 * Some relevance, maybe. Not a biggie.
 * F: working on essays/helpdocs
 * Not very relevant, except for showing evidence of thinking, helpfulness. Dunno. Not a biggie.
 * G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content
 * I'm a relatively prolific FA writer, but I am not sure I'd be a good candidate. The positives come from the fact that it usually means you're a good team player, but I'm not sure GA and DYK is the same and there are plenty of FAs that have been produced by solo players who'd be lousy Arbcom members.
 * H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content
 * Largely irrelevant.
 * I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat
 * Largely irrelevant.
 * J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL
 * Largely irrelevant.
 * K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST
 * Definitely helpful. You can see their thinking more generally and I like to see evidence of interaction, collaborative working, making arguments and listening to arguments.
 * L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with or informally
 * I have an irrational aversion for anything to do with IRC. No idea why. In any case, not very helpful, as I can't see the evidence.
 * M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally
 * Not very helpful, as I can't see the evidence.
 * N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc
 * Not very helpful, as I can't see the evidence.
 * O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Answered above
 * Your Comments: Now that was an interesting question.


 * Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom.
 * Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN,
 * continued : F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC,
 * continued : K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o,
 * continued : P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN,
 * continued : U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD,
 * continued : 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR,
 * continued : 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT,
 * continued : Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments: Not going there.


 * Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom.
 * Options: (same as previous question -- please see above)
 * Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have.
 * Your List-Of-Letters Answer:
 * Your Comments: Not going there either.


 * Q#12. Anything else we ought to know?
 * Your Custom-Designed Question(s):
 * Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): Everyone getting overheated about Arbcom elections should be forced to read WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY.


 * The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers.  Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion.
 * Your Wikipedia Username: User:Dweller
 * General Comments: After doing all that, reading "collapsebottom" on the next line, is quite apt.

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72.  Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published.
 * If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers,, leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save.  The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder).

Incorrect link Swedish/English
The Swedish article which is about Coping Saws is incorrectly linked to the English article for Jigsaw. In Swedish the article is Lövsåg.

A Coping Saw is a handsaw that works on the pull stroke and can be used to cut out curves: Fretsaws are for finer work and not as robust. Jigsaws were originally designed with a treadle and nowadays are electrically driven. They are not handsaws.

I would correct it myself if I weren't permanently blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia. Could you put me in touch with someone who could fix this error? Regards, RPSM (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , are you able to help? --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, but there are some wikicoded interwiki links in coping saw where I don't know the language and the topic well enough to move them to wikidata. And also, at least some are connected to fretsaw on Wikidata. Sjö (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. , hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my admin reinstatement request
Dweller, Thanks for supporting my request. Good to be back. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Monitored short pages
Hi. The intention is to separate pages that meet a minimum level of quality from the content of the short pages report. The addition of to such pages allows for the Special:ShortPages report to be used to find new or unnoticed short articles that may need to be formatted or deleted. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Dweller, why did you leave this message to me? Semidemiquaver (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)