User talk:Dweller

Archives

1 (Apr-Jun 06) 2 (Jul-Nov 06) 3 (Dec 06) 4 (Jan 07) 5 (Feb 07) 6 (Mar 07) 7 (Apr 07) 8 (May 07) 9 (Jun 07) 10 (Jul 07) 11 (Aug 07) 12 (Sep 07) 13 (Oct 07) 14 (Nov 07) 15 (Dec 07) 16 (Jan 08) 17 (Feb 08) 18 (Mar 08)

Me again!

Hi again,

Sorry to be a bother again,

the notice I placed on the sweet thing has had a few positive supplied. Should I go ahead?

--Dvorak (wtkwhite) ^(Talk) 09:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lost car keys

Hi there. Sorry, I had seen your post and I didn't mean to repeat your advice. When you said Toyota, I thought for some reason that you meant that he should contact their head office. My 2p-worth was intended to be different advice. Best, --Richardrj ^talk ^email 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

itfc history

hey dude, out of wikiworld until Thursday daytime. Can you keep an eye on the itfc fac until then? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was keen! Anyway, I'm out until tomorrow now, so anything you could do would be great. I'm off for a day on the M25... Cheers... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it appears I'm back. Good work so far... I understand you can't support - this is most certainly a joint effort! I've got some Cobbold stuff to add in so I'll just get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll clear the sneaks.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dude. I think I'm done now. I've flowed Cobbold stuff throughout, added a Sheepshank note, addressed the sneaks... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers cheeky. Fingers crossed I suppose! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have you seen this? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If past attempts have anything to go by, I'd suggest appending the word "lead" to the word "balloon"..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the Robson thing, I left a note at WP:FOOTBALL about it. Nagging Raul to replace a Sept 1998 hurricane with the big man's 75th birthday. Yay! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Odd edit

15:35, 13 February 2008 Steph mcdonnell (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Talk:Castletown-Geoghegan to Benny McDonnell: someone vandalising it.) (undo)

After my tagging

—Reedy Boy 14:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I've deleted it anyway —Reedy Boy 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman mystery

Thanks for your input. The "priestess" was rubbing my forehead at the apex between the eyes. I just wonder if I have fulfilled my charge.LShecut2nd (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowen

You said:

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|48px|left]]An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Bowen (writer), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bowen (writer). Thank you. Dweller (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; i'll consolidate my response on the talk page, and probably promptly start some Google research immediately.
--Jerzy•t 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'll be delighted to call for the AfD to be closed because notability is shown. That's what we're here for, after all. And I'm certainly no deletionist! --Dweller (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the AfD, i trust you didn't intend, by choosing the terms "reluctant" and "so here we are", to express impatience with the normal course of WP business. Part of collaborative editing is that we harness the effort of editors willing to make small contributions that are motivated by their interests, and of those of others who are motivated to follow up, by their own interests. (In fact, my only reluctance that i am aware of is against interrupting another WP project where my efficiency will suffer from the interruption to do the kind of G-test that this will sooner or later require, and whatever that leads me to. Mind you, that's just my problem: you've acted appropriately, on the basis of your opinions, just as i have on mine.)
--Jerzy•t 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, I suppose. I just thought that it would be a better use of everyone's time if a decent notability claim could have been inserted at the time of removing the prod, rather than just inviting the tediousness of listing at AfD (I wish the developers would make that more streamlined). I took it from what you said that he is indeed notable, which makes me feel Pointy in listing the AfD (which I hate) but I kind of felt boxed in; the article as I found it was borderline speediable in my opinion. Anyway, let's hope the stub gets significantly improved as a result of all this. --Dweller (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ I wouldn't classify that under POINT, first bcz i think "disrupt" was intended to refer to degrading what we are trying to provide to the world, namely the main namespace. But in any case, bcz that policy is too important vis-a-vis the articles, for us to distract from their "sanctity" by putting our disputes in the background on a similar basis. Sarcasm is problematic (i think the term is apt re both POINT's target and at least clear cases of what you're talking about, in other namespaces) but much less drastically so.
_ _ What i'd like to say to you abt this interaction is what i think of as the distinction between an assignment editor on one hand and my assignment editor or your assignment editor. Your complaint abt the inefficiency of marshaling the N evidence bolsters my impression that you presumed the article was indeed retentionworthy, and wanted to goad me into what you would consider more responsible editing. The most important thing to say abt that is that it worked. Once. (Or sorta worked; only you can judge that.) I doubt it will work again between you and me, and if someone else has that intention (i think i'd have noticed if anyone had before, on an article i'd started), i think i'll be less inclined to extend, even early on, the benefit of the doubt.
_ _ Wikipedia works bcz it has the technology to make virtually unstructured collaborative editing feasible, and has mobilized the will to keep vandalism and cluelessness relatively under control. As with evolution and even selective breeding, the keys are throwing away the bad, and rachet-like effects that preserve improvements too small to be systematically bothered with. I think you'll find, in the long run, that impatience and efforts at exhortation (other than by quietly being a good example) will neither work here, nor, in the long run, be tolerated. It's not so much that diversity is a strength for us, as that sustained active efforts to improve the editing corps are more likely to approximate a revival of Nupedia than to accelerate WP development. Having an article on Bowen is a small step forward, and it will attract more suitable editors for it than would throwing away stubs while waiting for an editor to come along who's more interested in him than in their other WP tasks.
_ _ (Oh, and if you really opine that "the article as [you] found it was borderline speediable", i urge you to reread A7 and consider suggesting a rewording in it of "indicate why" -- would "mention what" have made the difference in your opinion? -- rather than learn by ending up on DR or WP:ANI.)
_ _ I'm running out of preaching steam, and in any case, i'm no longer the one suitable to WP:RFC you in our dispute abt the approximate-YOB information you removed. I hope it's just another side of your wrong-headed exhortationism, but in case it's not, your construction of OR is absurd. That policy is, as it prominently and clearly states, about "your own opinions or experiences." If the mathematical calculation of such a figure is OR, prohibiting editing in the result (with the nearly unfalsifiable "c.") would imply that no editor may count the names of the Brontë children and subtract in order to write "She had 5 siblings" -- and put in question rewordings like "stay there" for "not go to X". But my work on this is done.
--Jerzy•t 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist RFA

Kurt Weber is known for making only one kind of remark at RFA. He always says this. He also usually comments with this pasted answer in rapid-fire on all the self-nommed RFAs. Useight (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I've moved User:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates to your userspace for safekeeping.

The Transhumanist 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Coaching

I've resigned as coach.

I'm telling you in case you want to help coach the VC students.

The Transhumanist 03:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

new game

Think my new list is a goer? I think it'll be cool... As for the FC fiend, I'm ignoring him. Before I lose the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you think the right title for my latest project should be? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really, just as its work in progress I'd rather do a playpage job. I'm intending to finish it to the point where I put it in mainspace today. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll move it over later today. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I've moved it to where you recommended and it's at PR now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added the couple of edits you made back in. Cheers, have a good weekend! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your attempted humour.
The next time you humourise Wikipedia, you will be mercilessly slated. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rofl! --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Admins

Yeah, maybe. In fact, if you don't mind, maybe I could keep an eye on your admin decisions and deletions, that's if you didn't mind. Do you do a lot of deletion related stuff on Wikipedia? Has anyone ever questioned any of your decisions? If that happens, you could throw it over in my direction and get my opinion on it. D.M.N. (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 nil

Oh, and incidentally there's a mite of discussion now over whether "my" England managers article should be FLC or FAC. I think for FAC I need to expand it a little more and I could do with your help in seeing areas where I could expand, trying hard to focus on the managers more than the team's exploits. I have to admit I was thinking FL all the way but the sheer girth of the history section is becoming serious FAC stuff (in my humblest opinion!). Whadddya reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I think perhaps a move to "England national football managers" and some sections with a bit of further expansion is needed. I kind of see what Koncorde is saying but it feels like this article will just be ripped apart and averaged out over all the other England articles, while I wanted this one to be more focussed on the managers, their successes and failures, and anything else of interest about them. What do you think? (4–0) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So you with me or are you with me?! I might as well close the peer review if we'd doing a bit more of an overhaul. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. PR closed. I'll move the page as I suggested soon and perhaps we can start on it soon... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the M25 again tomorrow, so in my absence, please find the latest opum magnus, England national football team managers. I've added a couple of section headings but beyond that not much else. I'm not sure if we should keep the media reaction in a separate section or just merge it with the history. I can see good arguments both ways. And as for a graph of tournament results, I'm not sure how that would work - at the very least it'd need to be logarithmic to avoid group stage being about 1/8th as good as QF in some tournaments! Any ideas on how to present that stuff would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Grant (rugby player)

Hi! If he was from New Zealand or Australia I would create an article, but I don't really have any references for South African rugby. I added him to the Peter Grant dismabiguation list solely because he scored on the weekend and was thus linked from 2008 Super 14 season. --Stormie (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

Cavachon

Hi. Thanks for tagging. Did you mean to use the empty template?

Yeah, because it was. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITFC FTC

Hey dude, just a quickie, I've now got ITFC at featured topic (history article got promoted today!) so check it out! NCFC next?! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cricketing terms

Xavier Tras - Yes, it is real term - although I was surprised at how little it turned up when I originally did a google search. It is likely to be known by the Test Match Special brigade, and it appeared from my search that it is also known in Australia. Can't really help in terms of providing citation - it would be interesting to know who coined the phrase. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been explained in print, e.g. [1] - not sure whether a Reliable Source makes something notable - notable I would have thought would be independent of that. I tend to think in terms of verifiable. I don't think this is nuclear physics - so I don't think it's appearance in a peer-reviewed journal is necessary - it's either true or it isn't. Obviously I defer to your seniority in terms of knowing the wiki ropes. It could be removed without any heartache, just seems odd that such as expression would lack an explanation on the wiki. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to have been used by the commentator Tim Lane so may indeed be Australian in origin. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell usually says "Tim Lane's friend" - it is a Laneism I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in Australia, but only used on the radio commentary of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Usually only the general Australian commentators like Jim Maxwell, Tim Lane and Glenn Mitchell use it; the "expert analysts" like Peter Roebuck, Kerry O'Keeffe and Geoff Lawson tend to not do it so much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most cricketing people all over the world would understand it (I've never even heard of Tim Lane before this and I'm in the UK) - and yes, 'Tim Lane's friend' has cropped up in my searches - it would be interesting to know for sure who coined the idea. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bong?

Bong me at work...The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off home now. More from there. You think Eileen deserves her own article? Will she meet WP:BIO well enough or is she just one of those minor notability via "one off news stories"...? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home now. What's next for our co-creation? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So, England now, NCFC next (and I think we should push the East Anglian derby to GA at least!). What thoughts for the England management article right now, beyond attempting to cite your wildly extrapolative originally researched rambling prose....?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I've warned you before for attempting to humourise the Wikipedia. Not only is "Hoddle became a pharmacist after leaving the England job" funny, but it's in direct violation of WP:BLP so I've got little choice other than to block your account infinitesimally... The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the FA website said the Rous Cup was considered friendly (well, that's what it says on the individual manager pages) so I'm not sure if it's worth doing more than perhaps mentioning it per manager. I mean, come one, a tournament with England, Scotland and Chile is hardly something to write home about, is it?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done those jobs. Is it just down to {{cn}}'s now? I'm not convinced by the calls to resign section (I'm sure that'd need to cover every "modern" manager) - can you clarify the calls to stay section a bit? I don't recall that! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, what now? Any ideas for the "sporting significance" section? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll junkit. Suggest we try to tap off all remaining {{cn}}s either by citing or removing and then head back to PR? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You're very, very good at those....! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of England national sports team managers

A tag has been placed on England national sports team managers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Closedmouth (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a mistake. I've speedied it myself. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I nom'd an admin's article, I think that's a first for me :P --Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considered, yes

But only for the extra tools. I'm not much good with bureaucracy or policy discussions or anything important like that, and I don't write articles, so I probably wouldn't pass an RfA. Yes, I am an eternal pessimist! --Closedmouth (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl the Intern didn't need to be deleted.

Carl is noteworthy. This is jsut a case of Wiki admins going on an ego trip again. There's so much crap on wiki and Carl is cetainly more important then alot of it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe target (talk • contribs) 16:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22carl+the+intern%22

Try that.

You know. Either way. I had put a hang on on it and you deleted it anyway...pure abuse of the system

Whatever.

All I have learned is that Wikipedia is a joke. I understand now why no credible source will let you use it as a refrence. It's full of ego maniacs and wasteful, pointless pages. Heaven forbid I add one more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe target (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy and Sally are Valid

Buddy and Sally are the names of two characters on the Dick Van Dyke show. Laurie has made reference to it several times on the radio. Quit deleting it just because they don't have TV in whatever third world nation you live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dick_Van_Dyke_Show