User talk:Dweller/Archive2016

Norwell Roberts
Hello Dweller, thank you for your question. The bulk of the information in the article came from an interview with Norwell. He wanted to have the article written in order to have a concise and correct account. The rest was collected from articles and books. Norwell has recently asked me to add photographs, however l'm struggling to get them accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagoyajoe (talk • contribs)
 * I'll reply on your usertalk. Let's keep the rest of the discussion there. --Dweller (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary...
...here: Best chuckle I've had today! Thanks! —  Wasell ( T ) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did wonder if anyone would notice! --Dweller (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 15, 2016
Just got this one today ... short notice. Would you like to take a whack at it? - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. I had to get it down to around 1150 ... see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , looks good! --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Two questions: if I've already said they were "relegated" to Second Division once, will people not understand what "fell to the Second Division" means? I'm trying to use shorter words and vary the words. Also, if I tell you "I'll be working until 5 today", wouldn't you assume that I'll stop working at 5? If so, then your edit adding "until" isn't ideal, because it took 2 or 3 years after Shankly arrived before they emerged from Second Division. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's good BrEng to say the club "fell to" the Second Division. I'll take another look at both issues. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Two problems, one fix. Efficient, huh? --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Okay, I'll write myself a note about "fell to", and the 2015 Fowler's covers "through". - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Yael
Actually, can you do it? It needs an admin. Thanks if you can. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. We're about to have the whole "you're not an admin?" chat, --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I signed the "don't wanna be" page years ago - not least because I'm actually pretty crap at the tech stuff. But thanks for asking. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a techie, either. But it's dead easy to use the tools they provide us with. The tricky part is making sure you follow policy, and you seem pretty au fait with that. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

was performed?
In Bach's cantatas, we try to show his activity in not only composing, but also leading the performance after having prepared the singers and instrumentalists, summarized in "he performed it". If that seems not clear enough: "he led [the Thomanerchor in] the first performance, - or what would you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Do you mean he personally prepared the performers, but didn't perform or conduct? To me, and I'm an ignoramus, "led" implies conducted, but it'd be weird to use a euphemism. In any case there seems to be ambiguity here - why not just spell it out? It can't take that many words... --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would take words to say that he didn't do what the average conductor does today and what "conducted" would mean for most of our readers: influence by gestures. Bach would also have played at the same, the violin or the continuo keyboard instrument, - but we don't know for certain for a specific piece which. All this is implied by "he performed", - where we started. In cases of FA (such as BWV 172), there's more detail. (Btw, a ping works only with a signature,- if you add it later you have to sign again. But I watch.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would a simple approach be, in the lead, to mention that he himself played in the debut performance (which is a pretty interesting claim, anyway) and then elucidate in the main text? If not, don't worry about justifying yourself politely (I really appreciate your patience with me) just say "no" :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say: too much detail, at least for simple articles with a three-sentence lead, some 150. I inherited it from people who started them back in 2005. In GAs and FAs, there is more. Comments welcome to FAC BWV 4 About the interesting claim: read about conducting: "In instrumental music throughout the 18th century, a member of the ensemble usually acted as the conductor.", - the idea of one person just standing and organizing is mostly 19th century, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Some strange edits
Hello. I wonder if you could take, at your leisure, a look at some edits/editors in one of your official capacities. I came across User:Brownweepy when some copy was added to the Dominic Ostler (rather forgotten but good Warwickshire cricketer) article: the additions suggested some reasonable sources, but the copy added was nonsense, almost as if it was being cut and pasted from a piece of text where the cutter/paster had put the cursor in the wrong place and got half-lines of text. The same editor has also contributed to another article on Oceania Cycling Championships where the same kind of copy is in place – but this time the copy was added by a different user, User:Theatremania. I've left notes on Brownweepy's talk page, but not so far with any response. None of this is any big deal, but it's kinda irritating. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick look - seems like someone using Google translate. Look at their edit summaries, too. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

LFC history
Hey Dweller, hope you are good. Just messaging to see if you would like to revisit your comments at the FAC on History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85). There have been more comments by User:Mattythewhite and I think the article is in much better shape than before. I appreciate you're busy and may not be able to respond right away, but I feel like it's very close to FA standard now. Cheers NapHit (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivo Pinto - Bits and pieces
Hello DWELLER, from Portugal,

Let's try and reach a compromise in the edit of this player, if possible: 1 - people reading the article (if they are interested/learned in football, they will know that the Primeira Liga is the top level in my country, if not, they will learn it quickly. Thus, there is no need - this being the English WP above all things - to overindulge in foreign words like Primeira Liga, once the competition name has been established through an early wikilink, no need to state it again, my humble opinion.

2 - size of dashes (in box and match results in storyline): don't forget, it's standard procedure to use "–" and not "-". Attentively, happy editing/2016 (and don't hesitate to feedback if you have additional questions or disagree with what I have said). Not exactly a newbie in case you are wondering, been here for nearly 10 years, used to have an account but asked it be vanished after a serious run-in with a troll, had the intention of leaving forever but guess I cannot. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why we need to "compromise" - there's no dispute. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry if I mislead you. "Compromise" meaning seizing bits of your version and my version and "gel" it together. Was hoping for a little more heavy reply ("heavy" in size, more wording), but appreciate your answering nonetheless. Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a version. I've not reverted you that I'm aware of. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No sir, you have not. I was wondering if you, in spite of that, have a problem with my amendments. I can hear your instructions (you are the English native speaker, not me) and adjust here and there, if need be. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your contributions. If I did, we'd be talking at your user talk, not mine! --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

מִטּוּדֶלָה
...(pronounced [mitu'dela]) is the moniker of a residential/commercial street in Jerusalem's Rehavia neighborhood, on which my elder daughter lived in her third year of law school. More notoriously it's the location of namesake Netanyahu's local ice cream vendor, where regular purchases of lavish quantities of vanilla and pistachio i.c. on the public sheqel made scandalous headlines in Israel and abroad several winters ago. (The way the P.M. charges his and his wife's expenses, they must be socking away his paycheck for their golden years?) I would very likely enjoy reading The Itineraries of the earlier Benjamin and shall add it as a recommended "Want-to-Read" on my Goodreads account I'm updating, albeit slowly and piecemeal. Do you use it? It's one of the knowledge-sharing virtual communities I've found helpful so am upping my contributions, after Wikipedia and along with Ravelry. Meanwhile, as a bit of quid-pro-quo: if you haven't already encountered Mary Kingsley's Travels in West Africa you might care to give it a look. (Amazing what's available in my kibbutz' library!) ''-- Cheers! Deborahjay (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)''
 * I've walked down or past Mitudela on a number of occasions. I like Rehavia. Though I've never been to the ice cream shop. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Any chance you could take a look at this? I'm clearly too involved now to do anything. Harrias talk 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding the whole mess a bit tangled but it looks like Gnorman has been blocked. Hopefully, that's a good outcome for you. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's never a good outcome when someone ends up getting blocked. But I can hardly say I'm upset about it in this case. This is why I normally stay away from hassle! Harrias talk 10:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm a bit bothered by some possible socking, but I'm not really keen to pursue it. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * [Talk page stalker] Yes, I had a slight feeling of déjà vu as well. Johnlp (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your protection
You protected Halakha ten days ago. I told you right away on the talkpage that that was overkill. No consensus has been reached. In the mean time there are two protected edit requests there, and I think you should reconsider the protection.

I just want to add that I see no reason to make any promises to refrain from reverting the addition of the hatnote there, as long as there is clear consensus to have it. I think that any reverts of repeated attempts to change this article from the way it looked, are in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and if anything, as I said there, you should have explained to the IP user that he should first establish consensus and not edit war. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. It takes two to edit war. And I'll refer you to WP:BOLD. It's not like it was a particularly contentious edit. And finally, if you're saying you won't refrain from edit warring, it doesn't encourage me to remove the protection early. --Dweller (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7
a sizable chunk of those opposing cite issues that could be overcome if the candidate chose to I cannot find any. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Hawkeye. There are plenty there. May I humbly point you to User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors. Come back and have another look at your RfA in March. While you may feel now the way you apparently do, some perspective will help. I think there's quite a bit of goodwill towards you in the opposes, although granted, some will automatically oppose you every time, even if you miraculously turn into a wikisaint. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I am going to be trying again for RfA myself, and I know there will be a measurable number of the "automatically oppose" hit me too (and also off-wiki discussion as happened at my last on and is ongoing for Hawkeye as well...). Not sure if it's worth the headache, as I also will probably have the "issues the candidate could change but didn't" accusation leveled at me.  (Still drama with Mustangs, still others pissed that I'm not OK with COI editing, a few old spats will never die because good users have to agree to disagree).  An admin needs to be neutral as an admin, but I really don't think that having no opinions on anything or being bland milquetoast is a qualifying attribute, either.  Your thoughts, Dweller?   Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  06:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think being up front is good, but stopping short of being confrontational. A good admin is strong, but not unbending. Knows policy, but doesn't think they know it all. If you go into RfA with a "history", you'll get opposers whatever. But if you've shown some contrition, an ability to deal with the issues that arose and some everyday humility, there's no reason why an RfA has to fail. And it might take two goes to show those characteristics properly. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I opposed this time but will probably not the next. I was disappointed by Kirill's block, more disappointed by Hawkeye's barnstar for it, shocked by the death of Dreadstar, more disappointed by not enough explanation of the barnstar in reply to my question, a bit frustrated by a clerk counting questions where I simply tried to reach understanding, so opposed in a frustration that will hopefully be over in six months, when I will see criticism instead of a barnstar for a block that weakens Wikipedia: a content creator blocked, and others arguing no end about it, - all producing no content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall interacting with Dreadstar, so it came as a real shock when I clicked on the link in your comment to see who that was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which means that you came to my talk and didn't click on heartache (which I understand) nor on "Now my friend died who truly deserved 'defender of the Wiki'" in response to your question (which I don't understand)? He came to my defense on Laurence Olivier. I was cited to AE, he blocked himself before he was desysopped because of it. - He still gave me good advice per email afterwards. A true defender ;) - I created a prize in his name, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

, I think the problem is the word "contrition," which suggests not simply a decision to do things differently in the future, but rather a bit of cloth-rending or begging for forgiveness that doesn't work in the real world; it's shaming -- a scolding "now you go sit in the corner until you're ready to say you're sorry" is useless for teaching children actual compassion and it's even more useless on wikipedia. Here, it seems to me that Hawkeye definitely got slapped for insufficient contrition, and maybe he isn't actually sorry but does intend to not do the same behavior again. When it comes to asking forgiveness of those who aren't going to forgive, it's just showing your throat -- once that starts, where does it end? Is it enough to simply say, "I made a mistake there and I don't intend to make that mistake again." In some cases where someone was actually hurt in some fashion, an apology is appropriate, and showing compassion for the person one harmed is needed, but in many wiki-wars, there is no clear right or wronged party, just a bunch of hurt feelings, and a pro-forma "apology" is a mere insincere ritual, particularly where the person on the other side shares responsibility for some of the bad behavior. Also, perhaps the person isn't even wrong, they've just pissed off a certain sub group or clique. Montanabw (talk) | GO THUNDER!  00:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tyvm! Again! --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dweller, welcome to the cabal of the outcasts! You must be brave, to join those who with battleground behaviour and in flash-mob action will not rest before they have forced an infobox on all articles, allegedly ;) - Welcome! Look around and watch WP:QAIPOST, and post there what you think is interesting for all. Feel free to add suggestions to the TFAR table. Avoid the infobox topic, for your health ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a general question, being no native speaker of English: can a statement be a "personal attack" if it is not directed at one person but a group? I thought then "personal" would not apply, but I may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. If someone insulted, say, all British people, then each British person could, and probably would, take the insult personally. The "crime" is in attacking an aspect of someone's person, which can be done against one, or many, people at once. Harrias talk 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree with Harrias. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you explained, but think that to call it "personal attack" is sort of misleading. The other day I read "snide or derogatory comment" which I think would be kind of more precise. (", that if I feel I need to make to make a snide or derogatory comment about someone - I think it's better form to do it to their face (their talk page), or at the very least in a conversation they are already engaged in.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In a yes/no discussion, someone on the side of "yes" who calls all supporters of "no" "morons and idiots" is making a personal attack and making snide/derogatory comments. He's making an attack on the personalities of the other people. That he's doing so to a group makes no difference. But this may just be semantics. Either way, it's totally unacceptable. Play the ball, not the man. Make arguments, don't toss in comments about people. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that you were the behind the old values, which I signed early ;) - If you ever see me making negative comments about people, call me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm very proud of User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. I wish a) it had wider exposure and b) that I can always remain true to it. --Dweller (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Advertise on WP:QAIPOST ;) - also the advice for wiki-stressed editors which I signed as no 1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Today: Paul Collingwood, "a wonderful example of how a collaboration can take a B class article onwards and upwards in a very short time", - said some time ago, but hopefully still true! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Margate
I'll see what I can do............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ali Raymi GOD Alias
Its established within boxing that Ali Raymi used the alias GOD, take a look at the references & do a google search: Ali Raymi "God" Vadimhalicki (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: old TC FA's?
Hey there. I would love to review some older featured articles, but I honestly don't have the time. My real life schedule is regularly quite busy, and the limited time I do have, I'd rather improve existing articles that might not be as good, as opposed to doing more work to a existing featured articles. I hope that doesn't make me a bad Wikipedian, I just don't have the time like I used to! :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It doesn't make you a bad anything! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ali Raymi alias "Great" was never used by Ali Raymi
Hey Dweller, with all respect where did you get the alias "Great" from? In boxing we know Ali Raymi Alias GOD & brand TGE (The Greatest Ever) a play on Floyd Mayweather TBE (The Best Ever), its well documented so this is part of boxing hype that Ali Raymi used. I am starting to understand that you might be taking this in the literal religious context, but you shouldn't because if you follow boxing, fighters use such ubiquitous claims. Andre Ward casually calls himself SOG (Son of God) Vadimhalicki (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I didn't insert that. It was already there, and referenced. If you want to suggest a different nickname, you'll need to provide a reference from a reliable source. --Dweller (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a new nickname, his nickname has always been GOD, not sure who switched it to Great (I thought it was you). Anyways below are the sources:

Ref 1 ''Raymi who’s alias is simply ‘God’ has broken the record for consecutive first round knockouts as he has won all 21 of his bouts in the opening round. Furthermore when looking at his record every fighter he has faced so far has been undefeated before facing the 40 year old God.''

Ref 2 Some of the more hilarious comments are below from a fellow whose self-anointed nicknames are ‘The Apotheosis’ ‘The Legendary Entity’ ‘The Legendary Essence’,’The Greatest Ever’ and ‘GOD’

Ref 3 The braggadocios knockout artist called himself “God”, and was never shy about issuing challenges to the top fighters of the division

I removed dead links Vadimhalicki (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. I also found it in one of the links, and removed a few. Good work. --Dweller (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/March 18, 2016
Would you be interested in working on the TFA summary for some of the British and Australian sports articles? Maybe this one? - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye is working on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this. Ask again. I've been v busy IRL. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye doesn't want it. Still interested? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I could edit it, not being an admin. But I was able to tweak the wording anyway. Reduced it down to 1,200 characters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most strangely, the article does not mention the bit that every Australian remembers: Norman May yelling " "GOLD, GOLD for Australia, GOLD!" Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

TFAR?
What do think of nominating Jonathan Agnew for TFA on his birthday? I would do it, but still hope to nom 27 March, which is too close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great idea., you like? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done: Today's featured article/requests/Jonathan Agnew --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/March 28, 2016
How about this one? - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know pretty much nuffink about the boat race. OK. A tiny bit. But I've never watched it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/April 4, 2016
"including" is missing an antecedent (you could leave it in I guess, but I'd drop it and just say "achieving"). I'm not sure what a Test cap is (and I can't find the answer at the link or via a Google search, so perhaps readers will be confused too). Otherwise, it looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've worked on it and added some colour. I'll fix the cap issue now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great, but now it's 1295 characters. 1200 is a hard cap, and 1150 is better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll cut. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How about Paul Collingwood for his 40th birthday on 26 May? You can do it! - If you want to review see FAC Requiem (Reger) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Branigan Consensus discussion
I'm wondering how much longer there should be to get everyone's say so. The 21st was the last time someone gave a opinion in the section. Devilmanozzy (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/April 16, 2016
More cricket, if you're interested. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So soon after Agnew? OK. I'll take a peek. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying to "Howzat": TFA is one paragraph of around 1150 characters ... your approach was exactly right and conservative, but I had to trim. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request
Please delete the redirect at Index of chess articles to make way for a new article (and new addition to the set of indexes at Portal:Contents/Indices).

Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - is this still waiting to be done? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the lovely barnstar! Happy editing, and thanks for spreading the joy. Neutralitytalk 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Aggers
It is good to see the article on the main page. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I see you've also awarded The Rambling Man, who is a Featured star himself. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Branigan RfC close
I added more references for the 1952 DOB after you closed the RfC. I had been looking for sources and didn't know you would close it before the 30 days were up. I'm not asking for a re-evaluation or anything like that, I just wanted to give you heads up since you wrote in your closing "despite the empty section above", I also left a note on the TP that the sources were added after your close. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courteous note. I did try to keep the page updated with indications of timing, but it's obviously helpful to have someone trying to uncover RS at any time. I'll take a look when I get a mo. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Branigan
Hello. Would you mind reopening the RFC on Talk:Laura Branigan? It was closed after 16 days (since it was opened on 19 March it ought to still be running), but the discussion has continued, and several more editors have joined, posting links to sources supporting 1952 as year of birth. Devilmanozzy, who started it all, has also started to wholesale removal of other sourced material from the article (see diff), claiming that the RFC close gives them the right to not only change the year of birth but also remove whatever they want. Reverting to the old manager's preferred version, showing that it's not an uninvolved editor who just happened to see a mention of Laura Branigan on another website, as claimed earlier, but the same user who has "owned" the article since 2006, repeatedly removing everything they don't like... Thomas.W talk 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (originally posted, by mistake, on User talk:Doug Weller instead of here...)
 * Thanks. I'll address this at the talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amakuru
Just reading the section of Amakuru's RfA concerning your removal of the word despot. Doing a Google search for the subject's name and the word despot, I find it is a fairly widespread description of him. It is used by respected newspapers and media sources such as The Times, The Telegraph, the BBC, and others. And it's not just newspapers - various books discuss him with that description:, ,. It seems that the description is so widespread that it would be appropriate for someone to consider as biased an article on him which does not discuss that aspect of opinions of his rule. As such it appears the oppose comment was justified, and can only really be understood with the term despot replaced. I understand why you went for the safe option of removing it, but people, including myself after looking into the matter, are feeling that the removal was not only unnecessary, but also distorts the oppose comment. Would you consider restoring the word? Or would you object if I restored it if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't, thanks. The comments aren't revdeleted, so if anyone is really that interested, they can always look through the diffs. We either take BLP seriously, or we don't - we can't ignore it in some circumstances and I don't agree there's an IAR situation here. There's already been enough hoo-ha at that RfA on matters that don't really relate. I'd rather it wasn't further sisturbed and editors continiue to focus on the candidate and their merits. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge
I have submitted a new challenge for you at User:Dweller/Challenge Dweller. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cherno More
Hi, can you take a look at PFC Cherno More Varna article and its talk page. I'm dealing with a user that seriously vadalises club history. I tried to clean up but he keeps coming back reverting to previous disputable versions.--Rebelheartous (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a peek when I have a mo. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Errol Crossan
✅, thanks for spotting it! GiantSnowman 16:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Crossan
You're welcome. But if one momentary loss of concentration really constitutes inadequacy, I think we all qualify... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ramsey
Hey dude, can we reinvigorate the Ramsey push? I have a few days to spare while I'm on paternity leave so I might well be able to help a bit more than I have. Even taking it to FAC for review and criticism may be helpful? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd absolutely love to, but my computer time is very very limited at the moment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oi, ! Put down those nappies and get editing! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Daemonic Kangaroo
Thanks for the email, and I am flattered by your comments. If you want to see a reason why I don't wish to remain here, just see the message above yours on the Daemonic Kangaroo talk page. WP has too many pedants who know all the "rules" and get orgasmic when they enforce them. I keep an eye on Southampton FC players and still revert vandalism, but don't want to come back on a regular basis. 92.26.162.36 (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (formerly Daemonic Kangaroo)
 * I understand your feelings. Feel free to contribute to Ramsey (as you just did!) whenever and in whatever guise you like. We're happy and lucky to have you. And you'll find the chaps working on Ramsey (there's only a few of us) to be pretty clued-up but also collegiate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Br. English
, as a Brit, perhaps you could help Corinne and I understand British-English practice regarding punctuation outside quotation marks. We're having a side-discussion about it here. Thanks! Sca (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought
Hi, I followed here from WikiProject Quality Article Improvement and I am reaching out for an opinion; as the member of the project I hope could provide input on the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would also welcome any feedback you'd be willing to share. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. If I understand you rightly, you're looking for help with assessing whether an article meets GA requirements? I'm afraid I have no expertise at all in GA. You'd be better off finding someone with a bunch of GA nominations to their name? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 21, 2016
Do you want to have a go at this? What I'm looking for in the first sentence is something about how Liverpool Football Club had a run of successes in the 1960s and 1970s, that is, some snappy summary of what they accomplished. I'm thinking that Heysel is a bridge too far for the first sentence. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thang. Meanwhile I've been updating User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page. Take a look. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. Pinging Chris and Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User Rights for Dorg2994
Hit Special:UserRights/Dorg2994 and be an administrator and bureaucrat. 112.134.82.248 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a Bureaucrat and an administrator already, but thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dorg2994 wants to be a bureaucrat and administrator 112.134.82.159 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest Dorg2994 reads WP:ADMIN and WP:CRAT. They might save some time by reading WP:NOTNOW first. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I read Wikipedia articles 112.134.81.9 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but unless you edit them using a registered account, no-one will trust you enough to grant you the administrative tools. Furthermore, if you're not editing you obviously have no need for the tools. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm registered account and you want to grant bureaucrat and admin to Dorg2994 Dorg2994 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikien-bureaucrats
Would you please check on my subscription request to Wikien-bureaucrats? — xaosflux  Talk 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'll try! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Margate
I'll chip in if I can, but after Saturday I'm going to be away for at least a week and probably won't have WP access....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of time before I go away. Will be interested to hear what the verdict is on what needs doing.  Last time I looked there was still a lot of material sourced to Jeff Trice's MFC history site, which has now vanished and by the more rigorous standards of today is probably questionable as a reliable source anyway.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Managed a flying visit back to WP. I have formatted (I think) all the bare URL refs..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
Long time no see.

Please speedy delete the redir at Outline of meals to make way for an article of the same name, per WP:G7.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: tracked down the policy, and reposted. In case there was any question.
 * Sorry I missed this. What's the article you want placed over the top of it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's done. The new page is Outline of meals, an expansion of Outline of cuisines. No doubt there will be more requests in the future.  I've been on WP more lately, and I hope the trend will continue. The Transhumanist 20:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case about TRM
I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for editing your user page not your talk page - I didn't realise they were different until now! alexconlin (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. A worthy scheme. But on returning to Wikipedia after holiday, I found the arbitration below on this page, which is sucking the remaining enthusiasm I have for this project out through the soles of my feet. I'm not in a good place to mentor anyone about Wikipedia because I feel sickened by it just now. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I just returned from singing an outstanding concert, - think it might brighten your spirits to look at my FAC, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened
You 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/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Cameron Twynham
You neglected to include a reason in your WP:PROD tag on this article. I won't remove the tag, because I agree this should be deleted, but someone else may do so if you don't add a reason. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it me or did you mean to link the PROD notice to a thread about Zolst Baumgartner? Eagleash (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Harry Rouse


Hello. A tag has been placed on Harry Rouse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Largoplazo (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Burke and Hare
Hello Dweller, I felt compelled to drop by to say thank you very much for your thoughtful and thorough review of the above. FAC beckons in a few weeks at which point either one of us will ping you for a second glance, if that's ok.  Cassianto Talk   21:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Burke & Hare
Many thanks for your comments at the Burke and Hare murders article's PR. This has now progressed to FAC for further consideration. Should you wish to make any further comments, it will be most welcome. Thanks again – Gavin (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Grave dancing?
I certainly hope that comment wasn't directed at me, but regardless, "grave dancing" is a pretty offensive and anything but neutral comment with which to close, and I think you should strike it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not addressed at you by any means and I'm happy to strike it. Apologies if it was over-stated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team FAC2
Hi, the article Belgium national football team is under review as FAC again. At the first review you took a glance and raised a couple of general issues that needed to be solved. I thank you for your critical input as it helped to get the article forward, and warmly invite you to have a second look now. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for the creation of a Wikipedia Council
I firmly believe that Wikipedia needs a governing body. The bureaucrats and the administrators all do amazing jobs and I highly commend then for that, however, I believe the people of Wikipedia - the unnoticed editors - need a voice. Yes, they may not have 50,000 edits or a few Basrnstars but if they want to make a difference, they should be able to!

Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines and what have you. I believe these should be scrutinised by a council of members, and passed through to a higher council of experienced editors, admins and bureaucrats. My proposed style would be a tricarnal system, as follows:

The Council of Wikipedia - the lower house Made up of editors, find issues and flaws in policy guidelines and are scrutinised in Council meetings (on a talk page perhaps?), there is to be a speaker or chairman of the Council. Every member has to be nominated or nominate themselves into the Council elections. Editors and admins can vote. Once elected, councillors serve for six months and can be re-elected. Councillors can be removed following a fair hearing by the Lords of Wikipedia for any wrongdoings. There are to be 500 elected councillors. There are to be parties in the Council. Each parties have to choose an ideology and how they act upon those ideologies (extreme or not extreme). I believe in Wikipedia, you either have 'Traditionalists' - those who support the way Wikipedia is run and prefer the strict policies and the 'Modernists', those who want to relax Wikipedia's rules. To have the party elected, you need to have 251 or more councillors elected. The party leader will become Chief Councillor. A separate election will take place for Speaker of the Council, who must be an elected councillor. He must also have support from at least two parties to be elected. Councillors are to be addressed by [User-Cllr.]

The Wikipedia Assembly - middle house Comprised of admins - nominated by the Council - voted for by all users. 300 members, 151 to gain majority. Subject to the Lords of Wikipedia. Role is to scrutinise policies further and send any amendments up to the Lords. Same democratic and parliamentary rules apply (i.e, term length, role of speaker etc.) Members are to be referred to as Members of Assembly (MA).

The Lords of Wikipedia - upper house Comprised of admins and bureaucrats, elected by both lower and middle houses. Only 15 non-affiliated members. Chief Lord is known as the Head of Site. He/she run Wikipedia's policies and has overriding say on all amendments. CANNOT ACT AS A DICTATOR. If the Assembly and Council agree in both their meetings, a Lord and COS can be overthrown. Lords serve a one year term and are suitable for election the third year (elected 2017, cannot run 2018, elected 2019).

I believe passionately about this proposition for the Wikipedia legislature. I am, obviously, open to other comments and different views and amendments to the structure but a basic tricarnel system, in my view, would be an exciting, democratic freedom Wikipedians would enjoy - as if a virtual world parliament!

Please reply and spread the word. If you have any queries or just want to continue correspondence, message me on my my talk page.

Many thanks -TheHumbugBar (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The Lords of Wik TheHumbugBar (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/History of Norwich City F.C. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

What now?
Saw your edit at WT:RD. It seems you've thrown all the beans away. I'm distraught, I don't know what to do now. I'm thinking I may have to climb the Reichstag, but I'm not sure which comic book character to dress up as. Please advise. --Steve Summit (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Beans are good for your heart, so maybe Johnny Fartpants? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Splendid! Never would a thought a that.  TYVM. :-) --Steve Summit (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Miller in 1948
I thought it better to take this off poor Dank's talk page as it all gets very cricket-y. I've been hacking up the Miller in 1948 article, mainly to make it a little shorter. It was 8500 words or so, but I've cut a bit. If you want to take a look too, I'd appreciate someone to check my working a bit, and to repair anything I've done too zealously. For my money, I find the 1948 articles a little tedious to read; worthy but dull, perhaps. So maybe I've been too liberal with the knife. Any thoughts appreciated here or on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. If Miller comes across as tedious, we've got it badly wrong. The guy was a phenomenon and a superstar before the era when that meant much. If he was alive today, his star value would probably eclipse Beckham and Tendulkar. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position
Anyone you can think of who would be able to code something like that? I honestly don't know. I'm a horrible Luddite - the fact that I actually manage to use a computer at all still boggles my mind sometimes. I'll ask around the AWB precincts about a script, at least. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Try Requests for bot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll see what I can dig up there when I have a moment. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN
Just curious but was this an accident or were you intending to clean the page. No need to restore it as it was answered. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm flummoxed. So sorry, no idea what happened. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just one of those things. Thought it might be a new way of keeping the page size down. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Another way of Dweller screwing up. :-o --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

 * Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)