User talk:Dweller/Archive16

Old question

Hello, I happened to see your question here. Paul McCartney at one point had 359 references but it has now been pared back to 304.

As far as I know 2007 Texas Longhorn football team is the current record-holder with 306, but I plan to split out some content according to WP:Summary style so that number will be fluctuating. Johntex\^talk 06:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hello Dweller, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...Here's to another year of cricket!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do tell me about your plans for Miller. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bagga

Sorry, I re-read my response and it wasn't exactly clear. The project talk page isn't the wrong place, but it doesn't tend to attract too many visitors (except obsessives like me). The WikiProject noticeboard tends to attract responses if something of reasonable interest is posted and I reckon we would more chance of a good response there. The noticeboard has an announcements section where the Barnes FAC has been listed for some time, but a direct request on the board will hopefully prick someone's interest. Anyway, I have moved it over now. You can see it at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Sid Barnes - FAC. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 12:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ellipsis dots

MOS says "word ... word", unless the first item is the end of a sentence, in which case "word.... word" (with upper-case W for the second if it is the start of a sentence. Tony (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"... word" Tony (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sid Barnes FAC

Yea, no problem! I learn something new through every FAC, and I wish you luck finishing that FAC. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty and the History Section

If we were to cut anything out of the existing History section and place it in a History of the Ming Dynasty article instead, what exact information would you propose we scrap from the main article without hurting the overall narrative or clarity of the Ming's history? I have seriously tried my best to compact info, summarize, and dumb everything down while leaving out miles of written detail (that I wanted to include) for the sake of the article's existing size. It's funny, I wanted to create a History of the Ming Dynasty article for completely different reasons than you; I thought that not enough was said in the existing History section of the main Ming article and wanted to expand upon each section in a new History article that would be about as large as the main article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow; that sandbox version is actually quite admirable, you know how to cut things down. The one thing I was kind of unsure should be left out was the fusion of Manichaean beliefs, but then again I didn't elaborate and explain the significance of them (being that the White Lotus saw the Yuan Dynasty as evil incarnate, and their forces were, well, obviously the fighters of pure good). Everything looked good; I wonder, if all of that was cut out, if resizing the image on the left with the cannon would work out; I hope it does, because that is quite a high quality image for the early Ming Dynasty and the rebellion period.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, remember that introduction to the "Decline" section that summarized what was about to be described in the decline sub-sections...yeah, I just went ahead and got rid of that (about 5 sentences), and now the History section is a bit shorter. Just a bit. It's the little things like that, in trimming, that help. I do like your ideas about the beginning, just as long as we can keep the cannon picture from the Huolongjing, then everything is gravy.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Article edited

I just edited the article according to your suggestions; the only thing I did not scrap was the sentence on Zhu persecuting the White Lotus society, which is important because he was a part of that Buddhist secret society and it was a large part of the rebel movement.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Jim Bowie

Hi Dweller. I know you are busily reviewing lots of articles at FAC, but if you have the time and energy, could you please take a look at the FAC for Jim Bowie? I've had trouble getting people to review the article, and any suggestions you have for improvement would be very welcome. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template for a regular

I added the template because it was on noted on WP:ANI that another editor had reverted some edits in an ongoing edit war over Hirohito. The editor in question must understand that it was about that topic. I was ignoring the rule in order to give the regular user a warning, which is more important in my book, before he would be blocked by someone else. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I added a P.S. here [1]. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hirohito naming

Hi. Thank you for your offer. I answered on my own talkpage, as usual. Švitrigaila (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop

Stop what you're doing; hold the phone; hold your horses; and sit down. What do you think you're doing? Ming Dynasty is my pet project; you never consulted me before you created the new article History of the Ming Dynasty, and you did not wait for consensus on the FAC discussion page to create such an article or to begin minimizing the history section. In fact, the article has gotten two more supports since then, and no complaints about article size or size of the history section. The latest supporter had this to say:

this deserves to be an FA as it is. I found it to be a light and entertaining read. There's no need to split it off or to make any other cosmetic changes. Basically, everything about this topic is "history" with the government, social and scientific sections there allowing a more indepth treatment than otherwise possible.

Here is what you said just a few lines up:

I'm not prepared to oppose on this basis, but it does concern me greatly. Very interested to know what other reviewers think.

Are you? Or are you more interested in what you want to do to the article?

I honestly appreciate the effort of your sandbox revision of the beginning sub-section in History, but you need to stop editing the article right now, and do nothing, absolutely nothing, until you start talking to everybody on the FAC page or on the article's discussion page and gaining consensus. Otherwise you are a rogue who does not care about others' opinions, especially the prime editor of this article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy, but you still didn't wait for consensus from everybody on the FAC page, did you? Going against what you said you would do. Are you the one submitting this article to FAC? Nope. But since you're taking a big interest in editing and reconstructing the article, that doesn't make you much of a simple reviewer anymore on the FAC page, does it?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if nothing at all were deleted from the Ming Dynasty article, more detail can be added to the History article that would be inappropriate for the main article?

But of course; this is exactly what I said in the first paragraph above in "Ming Dynasty and the History Section" here on your talk page. No harm was done in actually creating the History article, but your recent edits here and here, the latter where you deleted a sentence about the Ming adopting Yuan military trends, led me to believe you were beginning to minimize the History section (and leaving everything else in the main History article) without further explaining yourself on the FAC page or gaining consensus from the reviewers (who are split 50-50 on whether the history section should be minimized or kept the same). Since you haven't edited the article since then, I see that my original thoughts about your intentions were wrong. Still, this is an article under FAC review; don't be doing anything drastic without consent from other reviewers; I wouldn't want people starting to oppose the article on grounds that the History section is insufficient and lacks clarity due to lack of enough info to explain the narrative.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

b` k (4 gud?)

Hey, I'm back, still alive, head spinning from around 15 hours in various aircraft... All good here, hope ditto for you. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude, back at work. Yuck. How you doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight and current template

The article has had 122 edits ([2]) in just over a day. That's exactly what the guidelines say the template is for. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I count 34 edits in the last 24 hours, 17 of which were one person's, and a mere 13 editors, including myself and bots. At an average of 3/4's of an edit an hour, editors are not stepping on each other, which is what the template was designed for and to warn against.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite your suggestions for improving the edit summary explanation and message. I encounter all manner of uses of the template, and even for articles that did have a lot of activity, I find it desirable to clearly state why the time is up for its use for those editors who may wish to revive it.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnes FA

It appears that Bagga is now FA. See here. I guess we wait for the bot to do its work. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! Johnlp (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm well done. I didn't vote since I was responsible for maybe a total of 5-10 sentences that were scattered randomly throughout...I have been going nicely along with the pre-war stuff on Miller.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Archie Jackson FA

Hi Dweller. I think I have addressed your concerns raised at the FA review. Would you mind having another look and letting know if there is anything else? Thanks for your comments, they have helped immensely. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NCFC broken links

Hey dude, not sure if you saw this at WP:FOOTY but someone's kindly checked all football FA's for dead links, ITFC had about 12, NCFC has 8, you can find them here, should you wish to fix them. Don't forget to use the Wayback machine should you need to....! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Checking back in for Birmingham campaign

I appreciate your comments left in the FAC for Birmingham campaign. I hope I was able to meet your objections to your satisfaction. I'm contacting you here to invite you to revisit the article. I do not want it failed due to lack of response. Thank you again. --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone from the League of Copy Editors has spanked it into submission, fyi. Thank you again for helping to make it an excellent article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wetten AFD

Nah, it's a delete. Minor role child actor? Must be tens of thousands of them. I've made my view clear. By the way, spooky coincidence but I'd only just checked (about a minute ago) what you'd been up to (Full Circle - interesting) and you left me a message! Anyway, I'm restubbing and properly categorising (Movie?! I use that phrase all the time, but ironically!) to make your stub more professional! Sounds like an interesting film... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Movie = bad. I've replied on the talk page - use the year of production to dab the two films... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good good. I'll expand it a bit. You ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I have quite an absorbent kind of complexion so I'm one of those annoying types, five minutes in the sun and the tan is there. All good for me too apart from two migraines in two days, something to do with being back at work and staring at these poxy monitors for too long... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where you been sahn?

Ain't you seen me [[Flamin' Joel-wiki -where you been...(said in me best wiki-cockney..)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest player

I'm 99.999999999999999% sure it was Andy Hessenthaler but am struggling to find a reliable source to that effect ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

KM

Thanks! When yr message came through I was reading it. Will try to get there in next day or so. —Moondyne 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For dealing with that rather difficult account. Triwbe (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's (DeargDoom91) back as User:DeargDoom1991. He's only left a message on my talk page, but best to keep a close watch I think. Triwbe (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More canaries

Just a quickie, didn't know if you knew, but while I was away I watched some ESPN crap about Malaysian football and came across some South East Asian cousins of your lot. Couldn't quite believe it, but that's probably why I had so many peculiar dreams...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seasons

Dweller, Many football Clubs are coming up with the idea of having seasons to keep a record of what has happan during that season, i was thinking should we do that for norwich... Screechy 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nugget

Re your msg: I’ve got writer’s block at the mo, hence all the images I’ve uploaded recently…lol. When it flows again, I’ll go back to Hassett and leave you with Miller (too many cooks spoil the broth?), but always happy to offer two bob’s worth. So, IMO, Miller was a player of mood: his actions don’t always gel with this notion that he was happy go lucky and didn’t take cricket too seriously. Consider, for example, the match v Essex in '48 when he famously gave his wicket away. Commenting on the second day’s play in the match, John Arlott wrote in 1949: “Miller bowled as fast and as grimly as he had done all the tour, the fielding was as tight as in a Test match. There was going to be no nonsense about ‘giving Essex a chance’ even in the face of that appalling Australian total.” I see hagiography as your biggest obstacle…….

Phanto282 (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I admire your enterprise, but I work VVS (not Laxman, but very very slowly). I like to read extensively before I write & I haven’t done enough reading on Miller to put together good prose. Writing is bloody hard work - don't let anyone tell you different. I recommend Brightly Fades the Don by Jack Fingleton which is primarily about the ‘48 tour. It is summer here & v hot at the mo. Therefore, I’m guessing some Aussie editors are in hiatus but if you have patience they will pick up the slack and Miller will become an outstanding article because he was a fascinating character (as was Barnes).

Phanto282 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Symonds

That picture looks like Andrew Symonds why did you remove that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.84.170 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I wont edit it there.. but let me just leave it here.. this picture looks so much like him. I wish everyone saw it and called him james bond instead of that other bad word :p

Unfortunately, as it's a fair-use image, it can only be used in article space, and even then, only when directly relevant to its part in the film Octopussy. Yeah, I know, image policy in Wikipedia is a tough one to get your head round. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ok but tell me if you didnt laugh a little bit looking at that image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.84.170 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gavaskar/Border etc

Sure, I've added it to my watchlist. Have a good weekend if we don't cross paths until Monday... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Dweller, I am interested in becoming a better editor generally. I already create spoken articles but not so much text. I think I could learn lots from you (judging by the award count). Please adopt me!? Dvorak (wtkwhite) (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Will do that from now on. Dvorak (wtkwhite) (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou So Much. Have left you a pressy. User:Dweller/awards Dvorak (wtkwhite) (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got a new friend...

Have a look at this guy - thinks you're a puppeteer... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And when you get a moment, please go to Wikipedia:Peer review/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons/archive2 where I'm trying to resurrect an FLC near miss. Anything you could add would be much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Back

I'm back.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pink 'Un

Just noticed that there is a stub for the pink 'un. Any idea when the newspaper was founded, or any sources that can give details on it's history? It'd be good if we could expand it a bit. --EH74DK (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Are you an Admin. with an understanding of FA policy? I was thinking you might be, based on a thread on the current FA directors page. There is an attempt to reach FA status Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution that has become so out of control as to be destructive to a year of hard work. You would be starting from the bottom and scrolling up to the first "Strongly oppose" about 1/3 up. If you go - the problem will be obvious. If you are in the know on FA policy and can find a way to put out that fire so that it does not become the sole focus of this very meaningful process than I would be most appreciative. I think the current FA director is bogged down in a very very long list--- but this needs to be addressed soon because of its extremely disruptive nature. I am looking for a way to clean this up --- not trying to add more fuel on a already blazing fire. If the best solution is to ignore I will encourage that all involved do just that. If you are--- like me --- lacking in the experience to deal with such things; then I apologize for popping in from the blue here! In fact delete the entire message and accept my apologizes. If you can help or can direct me to help I would be grateful. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Problem Solved --- please ignore. Thanks.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You did indeed.  ;-)

I fancied a change. In fact, there have been two changes but I'm sticking with this one for the foreseeable future.

Glad to see the Invincibles is going well. I keep taking peeks at it but I'm tied up with my early history project and it's difficult to spare time. All the best. --The Ghost | ^séance 07:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

Have I failed to do so so far?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't remember if I mentioned it...

...but have you seen the Canaries that just won the Malaysian Super League? Check out Kedah FA. At least some budgies somewhere won something...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Duh. I did mention it. Only a few days ago. Must still be jetlagged.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, amazing difference from Roeder. Meanwhile my lot have stalled in upper mid-table mediocrity... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you send it to my work? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Thanks for checking into things. Moving to the discussion page was an excellent solution; although we did get "put in time out" by the admin. - which we probably deserved. Things were way out of control! More importantly, your suggestion is being "chewed on" at the discussion page at Introduction to Evolution. This has been a issue that we have danced with before. You should read early versions! Evolution is truth so shut the %$3&# up! Well maybe not that bad; but in part the entry was born out of frustration as a teacher who sees the Scientific view failing because Creationist like Ken Ham make their explanations so simple and Scientist have to make everything so complex ... hence the readable intro. There are some solutions in the making if you care offering any further guidance. Despite the rumor; I think the majority of the numerous editor at this site are very open to different perspectives. Even potentially explosive themes such as creation/evolution. Cheers.--Random Replicator (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you can't say it wasn't discussed. I mis-understood and assumed that you felt the lack of mentioning the general upheaval over evolution was remiss on the articles part. When you said there was a failure to mention the controversy, I was thinking social. The part about scientific challenges zipped right over my head. I guess we are at a loss on what areas of science do raise objections to the Theory. Perhaps if you could offer some specific science views that point out the failures of the theory we can better address your concern in a less chaotic manner. I think in the dialog, involving so many opinions - we lost sight of the actual concern. It is interesting to note that I plead for input constantly; but just the suggestion of the possibility of giving creationism / Intelligent Design mention does lead to extensive dialog. Thanks for keeping it interesting --- just haggling away about formating does get boring. --Random Replicator (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't get to it now... giving exams; but I would be delighted to play in the sandbox with you later this evening. I think I have a clearer understanding of what you want now that I have seen your example. Lets at least throw a specific product out there for others to chew-on. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

I hadn't had I. I put a redirect in from League of Nations health organization which didn't exist to WHO, the organization which succeeded it and is mentioned in the article? Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this isn't my first account. I have been editing since 06 User:Wtkwhite. Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results

Hi, I have started to expand the page - perhaps you would be good emough to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results, please? TerriersFan (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You owe me one squire.....

I think this one wants to get over the line but I can't quite bring myself to support, so.....have a butcher's...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hot kitchen

Yeah, I know what you mean! I hope you will also consider me cool and level-headed! My suggestion right now would be that you should produce a draft of what yuo think should be added to the article. Snalwibma (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

I just thought I'd drop a line to say that your oppose and points are completely valid. I disagree, but certainly did not lose patience with your perspective. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'm still thinking about how to resolve your points in a way that is more appropriate for the article. My recent edits are not necessarily an end point but a change a long the way, if you see what I mean. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center around perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views as to the source of species diversity. This is in striking contrast to support for the theory within the scientific community (work back in the number ...99.99%). ------ Stop ------ Nothing more.... No defense .... no offense just a statement ----- link it out from the line!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Thoughts????? Hurry Hurry while there is still time!!!!!!! WE can be all things to all people--Random Replicator (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We can link out via the term Objection --- right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Replicator (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've placed another version on both the sand box and talk page. The talk page might be best to give input now as it seems there may be some acceptance in play. Whatsupwestcoast has tossed out a version as well. Are we even close to what you were thinking? --Random Replicator (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds seasons FLC

Fancy a butcher's at this? Think it's as good as it's ever like to get. No pressure but it's probably light relief from helping determine how you and I came to exist?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Shouldn't you be in bed? I'm en route.... (oh and you have mail too....) More demain... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Interiot's back

Just thought you might be relieved. The Transhumanist 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dwayne Leverock

A) I'm not out to win friends, I have real-life ones without having to revert to cyberspace ones, who are obessed by Wikipedia and have no life outide of a computer B) Don't you find it hypocritical that you have a go at me for removing your comments, and then you remove mine? and C) I do not like being spied upon and it makes you sound like some sort of person who likes to think he has power but has none. I am not scared of you in the slightest, do what you want because I have better things to do, such as support the mighty Tractor Boys. Once again, well done to Bury Town and I'm sure you'll get to play them in a League game sooner rather than later! Thomas says WRACK ORF!!!!!!!!!!! and also says: YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOOD OLD DWAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayno99 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Van Morrison

Now why is so hard to find other Van Morisson fans in a class of year 9s. oh well, I guess I'll always be uncool. Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Version

Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Go ahead and edit too. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad, polymath

I agree with the request you left on Jagged85's talk page about Muhammad being a polymath. He responded here saying that some people have called him a "Universal man" and hence he qualifies, which I dont agree with. This is not the sense in which he was called a Universal man, rather its something like "(according to muslims) this guy is a standard for everyone to follow". Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? Specifically, when a man is called a terrorist and a pedophile etc. by many notable/reliable sources and there are people who are thus strongly critical of him in such a way, is'nt this something which would disqualify him from this list? They would not agree that he was a polymath. I would think a polymath could be used for a person only if everyone agreed on the person having these qualities and there were no disputes or controversies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously, his followers are talking of Muhammad in the terms of being a Universal man, i.e. a man for every one. A buddhist might call Buddha a polymath. This is not a non-partisan reliable source so why should we put that in? Similarly for Muhammad. Many entries in that list call people a polymath specifically. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

The fought over paragraph has been added to the text. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I clicked on God! Clever! --Random Replicator (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad mate

Thanks for the tip mate I'll be more careful with that. Just recently I've decided to contribute more to Wikipedia, and I still have a long way to get the grasp of all the policies, guidilines and other stuff :). I posted on the page of what I did and forgot to put it on the edit summary.

And I'm going to check the options in the preferences section.Samuel Sol (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Van

I suppose I'm just a few years ahead of the game then. Can annoy sister now - just got new speakers for my hi-fi. Lots of loudness! Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Porcupine

This user who is mentored by you asked for rollback permission. I am unsure whether his experience since the start of the mentorship is sufficient, and the previous blocks speak against granting rollback, but it seems to me that you have a better idea of this user's behaviour so I'd like to leave the decision to you. Kusma (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that rollback has been granted. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed myself... thanks, Lucas, for pointing that out!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice (and checking)

Hi, Dweller,

I have just been digging round some Van discography, and have found that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Thing goes to an article about a David Bowie song, and at the top of this article there is a link to the Van morisson song. Would it be useful to move it to 'Sweet Thing (David Bowie song)' [Van Morrison one is 'Sweet Thing (Van Morrison song)'] then create a disambiguation page and correct all links with 'what links here'. I just want to know if this is a sensible thing to do (and get permission).

thanks

Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bump...

Sorry, maybe looked like more meaningless chatter. Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the help. I have looked at the info pages: it advises that when one is vastly more popular than the other, then use a minor redirect. But judging from the link counts, I would say that they are about equal. I have edited the talk page and put a link on - so now do I just wait? Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me here please?

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience:

12:40, 20 January 2008 Dweller (Talk | contribs) deleted "Warm Showers List" ‎ (CSD G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

Roger Gravel (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited [[3]] and of course I would like to ask your help to edit it so it is not deleted again. Regards

Roger Gravel (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Portaloo Road

I've expanded the article and listed it at PR. Can you do me a big favour and give it a once/twice/thrice-over? I'm aiming for FA... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so far. By the way, to opt out of Sinebot's actions, check out the user page here. It's simply a matter of adding yourself to an opted out category... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at a rejig of chronological stuff to thematic... oh, and what do you reckon to using the panorama in the infobox as an article wide image (like what is happening in 2008 Orange Bowl) and replace it with one of the stand images? I've got a spare to add in (the Greene King stand - Image:ITFC South Stand.jpg) so it'd be a nice picture rich article...? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Saffron Walden Conservatives

I was just reverting the removal of the tag by the author. BJ^Talk 14:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I wish that admins who delete speedy noms would give their reasons in the edit summary. It is most annoying, and very unpolite, to simply dismiss the notice as just "declined"! Stephenb (Talk) 14:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• • This edit. That's why I added the comment under the current heading. In what way was I name-calling? And why am I "enraged"? I was simply making a polite request! Stephenb (Talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • 'm certainly not heated, but otherwise you're correct, I'm not complimenting you, though I have not called you any "names". I also have no problem with you asking for the diff. You went to a great deal of trouble but forgot that it is the article history that ought to show why the speedy nom was deleted for the benefit of other editors (such as myself). I was simply reminding you of that. I see no further point in continuing this conversation. Stephenb (Talk) 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring suggestion

Just a thought: at this advanced stage in m mentoring (almost two of the three months up now - though I was away for a few days under one of them), could we relax the talkpage restriction as follows... no change to our system with regard to User:talk messages; I may comment on Talk: pages (articles) with respect to points not connected to a dispute I'm involved in (so, to look at my /mentoring page, not the one about Saxon's political party, because that was me) but simply to give my opinion on others' issues.

I'd also be able to make comments on Wikipedia:[talk] discussion pages too. Obviously if I were to be incivil you'd point this out and start restricting me again... how's it sound? You may have noticed that I've recently started relaxing it slightly on my own for very simple, innocuous messages, but my proposal is slightly more wide-ranging. (Please reply on my talkpage).--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I think you missed this because there's further new edits below it!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine - never imagined you might be ignoring, just overlooking (as opposed to overseeing!) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reached your decision yet (24hrs)?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Sorry about the template - it was just because you've got a long talkpage and I'm nowhere near the bottom!! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith Miller

Perhaps we should switch the collab topic? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for your comment on my talk page. But I really do not see what I have done wrong. A week or so ago I tried to respond to suggestions from Amaltheus at Talk:Introduction to evolution in a helpful way, and got attacked for my pains, based on a total misreading of what I said. I sent conciliatory messages and tried to smooth things over, but anything I said was taken as an attack, as "poking", "mocking" etc. And then he starts sprinkling comments about me all over the place. Yes, I expressed exasperation - but the behaviour of Amaltheus is the most childish and intemperate I have seen in over three years on wikipedia - and that is saying something! Snalwibma (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wilcher Prod

I have added some more sourced info. Is this still a prod or can you drop the warning?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that you downgraded this from CSD to PROD you may want to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Stopping auto-sign bots

User:Sinebot#Opting_out. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullying on Wikipedia

Are you trying to get me to stop commenting about the article? This would only be fine if the article were not going to be seen by anyone, but Wikipedia comes up first in Google results often enough that's it's important to have an accurate article about evolution, even an introduction, and when the Wikipedia article is written by authors who call traits "new characteristics" which is directly factually wrong, it's an issue. No one else is fact checking the basics. I will be fact checking and commenting on gross inaccuracies that none of the other authors are checking and that should never have gotten into the article. I will also be checking for copyvios, as none of the other editors seem to be doing this either. A line that famous should have not lasted as long as it did.

It's interesting you felt the need to appease someone taking such delight in my being called mentally ill. I guess I don't understand the boundaries on Wikipedia. I can't respond to bullying, but I can diagnose mental illness in others over the web or laugh when a friend does that? Is that how it works? Just trying to get the rules straight, although there seems to be one set fore everyone else (talk about Amaltheus, call him mentally ill, personalize all responses), and another for me: I'm rude if I act like the examples set for me. People are astounded that I would act just like they do. They've never seen anything like it.

Don't answer. I've had enough of the "go away" and bullying from the group of you editing that article. It is about the topic, not about me. The article is bad. It uses terms incorrectly. It borrows words from genetics as if they were free synonyms to be used. It has its facts wrongs. It has its time lines wrong.

If you don't want me to respond, don't make nasty comments to me and about me. Or I guess I have Wassupwestcoast's example of polite behavior on Wikipedia: Stop it! Cheers! That should be fine since I'm following the example of an administrator. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<x post reply> I think in your understandable anger you've completely mistaken me for someone else. Did you see this ([4]). Please calm down. --Dweller (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Portaloo again

Not sure if you saw a note I left for you before (I've had a go at a rejig of chronological stuff to thematic... oh, and what do you reckon to using the panorama in the infobox as an article wide image (like what is happening in 2008 Orange Bowl) and replace it with one of the stand images? I've got a spare to add in (the Greene King stand - Image:ITFC South Stand.jpg) so it'd be a nice picture rich article...? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)) but I've also had a go at your latest comments. I think as long as I can expand the structure section a bit and get a decent copyedit then FA is on the cards. I mean, I just reviewed Golden Film which is at FAC and it's getting support, but it's about a third as detailed and, in my opinion, really poorly written. Bitter, me?!. Looks like the old checkuser was a worthwhile thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And now you have to explain that keeerazeee template at the top of this page. Come on, I'm waiting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do an image rejig tomorrow. Trying not to watch the BBC2 stuff about badger munching. Odd. More tomorrow. Plus maybe you can explain exactly how that template helps me/you/porky pine?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd never seen it before. Cool. What more on Portman Road? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The "where did Town play post WWI" question is reasonable. I'll try to answer it in the History of Ipswich Town F.C. article when I get round to pushing that to FAC! I don't think where ITFC played is necessarily 100% relevant to the Portman Road article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

←I've nommed it at FAC now. I'd love for you to go scrutinise it one more time - I messed with the images a bit, put the panorama in like the Orange Bowl article, looks quite snazzy. That then freed up an image space so I've now got all four stands there as well as the panorama and the statue and the graph. Quite enhanced I think! Let me know what you think old boy... Carrow Road must be next?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Humus sapiens/Infobox Jew

Hi, got your message. This is some old discussion in which I didn't take part. I think it should be archived someplace, or simply removed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some changes to WP:Boston Tea Party

I made some changes. Since it's your essay, I didn't want to mess it up without notifying you.

Well, actually I did, but I probably shouldn't tell you that because then I might get in trouble. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn, I probably shouldn't have said that. Where's that delete button again? Oh, that's right. There isn't one. Oh well, I guess you've caught me. Want to drink some tea? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Crowz

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowz and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowz (2nd nomination). Rezter ^TALK 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Dweller,

Thank you for your constructive criticism and input in making Alpha Kappa Alpha a featured article.

Best,

miranda 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

I'm coaching 7 students, and I'm co-coaching another (with Phoenix-wiki).

You are welcome to join in.

(Hint hint)

The Transhumanist 08:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No Reply

The message I posted on the talk page of 'Sweet Thing' has gone without reply, prbably because it is so rarely visited. Should I go ahead, or just wait for input. --Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay.

I just got my first star. Cool. Thankyou for helping me!

   *User:Dvorak (wtkwhite)/Awards#Award 1  —Preceding comment was added at 08:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 

Mentoring request

There's a new request on the mentoring page, just to keep you aware!!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Howardfromhalfax

Hi. I notice you speedy deleted a nonsense page created by the above, describing it as pure vandalism. Please be aware that I have already warned him for vandal edits to Uriah Rennie and a libellous one to Jon Champion. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude

How you doing? You've got mail... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My little joke with myself....nothing serious! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<ding dong> *urgent*. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<kazaam> The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<BLAMMO>...The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)

Hi. I don't want to make a big deal of this, but I am fascinated by your argument that Wikipedia could do with "a really good introduction" to the topic of evolution. Can I ask what you believe the article Evolution should be, if not a really good introduction to its subject? Thanks! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't understand your response. I think you are probably saying that the article general relativity is far too complicated, and I'd agree, based upon the footnotes. The question I have is whether it is the purpose of an encyclopaedia article to go into that level of depth or whether it would be more appropriate for the page currently titled "introduction" (I note that there are currently 16 such pages) to be in the place of the main article.

Please understand that this is not a loaded question -- I really am interested in your reasoning.

Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Your mentee, User:Porcupine, is requesting AWB tools. At this point, two admins have declined to add Porcupine to the approved users list. Porcupine's argument seems to be they he never abused AWB in their previous edits. My position is that I need more time to build trust prior to approving Porcupine for AWB. You, as an admin, may (of course) add any user to the list that you want. Since Porcupine seems rather firm in wanting to use AWB, I wanted to offer you that option. If you believe Porcupine to be able to edit in a legitimate manner using the - rather powerful - tools of AWB, I will not object if you add Porcupine to the tools list. I will not, however, add this user myself. - Philippe | Talk 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was that I was removed from AWB due to my blocks; but, my blocks were totally unrelated to my (very menial) use of AWB. That said, if I'm not added, it's Wikipedia's loss :D Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate to add you, Porcupine, to what's effectively a trusted users list, until the successful completion of your mentorship period. At the end of this, I agree with you that your blocks were unrelated to AWB and I'll vouch for your trustworthiness. I hope that seems appropriate to all parties, even if it's not 100% what any of you might have wanted. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Thanks! - Philippe | Talk 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of West Midlands railway stations

Hi Dweller. Thanks for your comments at the FLC for the above. I've made the suggested changes, as well as a couple of other changes - most notably an extra column detailing the local authority for each station. Regards, --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Dweller. I see what you mean about the Centro/NWM explanation. I've had a go at improving it, which I think addresses your concern. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Revisit

Hey, Dweller. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birmingham campaign is ready for a revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin to admin

Am I out of line here? Shouldn't I be mad as a hornet? Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Amaltheus (talk · contribs). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Your approach makes complete sense. I was over taken by blind rage, especially because I have never run into anything quite like it here. Wikipedia always surprises me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ITFC stat attack

Hey dude, I've double uber checked the stats and they're bingo. I've taken it to Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records/archive1 and pleaded for help on how to get a featured article out of it... It'd be a precedent I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments at Birmingham campaign

Thank you once more for participating in the FAC for this article (and once ore, I'm covering my bases for SandyGeorgia). I did my best to address your concerns, although there are a few I did not understand. I look forward to further collaboration. --Moni3 (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Despite the length of the FAC, I don't find it particularly frustrating. I am puzzled about the points you brought up that I addressed. I do quite honestly want this to be an excellent article, but I'm sure you know that an editor has to weigh what to change and what to keep when dealing with FAC suggestions. I also wasn't looking to persuade to change your vote to support because other editors have supported it - you should believe in what you believe. But that is a reason why I'm not sending it back to PR. It's not just crackpot ol' me that thinks it's in feature condition. I had a disastrous FAC for To Kill a Mockingbird where no one supported it, and I had to see the point in de-nominating it. I agree that FAC is not the place for peer review and of course I'm predisposed to think that the article I've worked on for months is in excellent condition, but I also hope to have exhibited a willingness to admit changes where they would improve it. The bottom line, though, is that the story in the article is quite extraordinary and multifaceted - irresistible. I do appreciate your input and look forward to working with you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. P.S. Grotbags sends hugs. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your presence on my humour page is intended to be a compliment; as you can see, few exchanges are good enough to make it. As for "The Pink Penis Windmill", I'm afraid the plots were just too subtle for me, so I didn't pay much attention to the detail. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Daaaaaang! Classic, and it's gone into the page since I missed it first time round. I should get out (of WP:ANI) more! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just tried to follow some of the thread of the week stuff- that C coding is a nightmare and long beyond me these days. I went for an interview once where they showed me a function declaration and asked me what it meant. I said it was a pointer to an array of functions taking an array of pointers to strings and a pointer to a function returning a pointer to an integer, returning an integer, but that anyone who actually did that sort of thing should be shot. I didn't get the job. Lucky me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)