User talk:Dweller/Archive22

Mail

Has been sent. A hui hou. --Ali'i 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

joining the ranks of the admins

1928-29 tour

Good work, Dweller. I would hope that one day all of these tours, certainly the old ones, will have their own articles. I do intend to look at the Bradman article again. It's just a busy time for me at the moment and I've not been on the site much in the last week. All the best. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read the Bradman article a couple of times but I've quickly gone through it again to confirm my existing opinion of it. I've supported it at FAC. I also answered a question from someone wanting to know who Chris Harte is. Many of the points being raised at FAC are picky and I think you are being subject to an unwarranted delay here purely because of Bradman's stature in world sport. People seem to expect so much more than for, say, Adam Gilchrist because they are not looking at it in terms of an article but in terms of a sporting phenomenon. Be patient. Great work. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I've taken the liberty of doing a small amount of editing of the lead. Regarding the scorecards, I'm not sure that the number of overs that each bowler bowled is worth recording. I think it tends to make the scorecard less clear. If anyone wants that much detail, then they can always follow the link to the full scorecard. JH (talk page) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hey, hope you're alright. I finished my first run over the citations last night. I'll hopefully give it a second run tonight to check for consistent linking. By the way, I was sysop-ed on Simple English an hour ago, so if I catch you stalking me over there again, I'll block you...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

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

-- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac 1 5--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was a nice offer...

"What a dickhead" Shows what we're working against. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman FAC

I am going to give more comments, but first I want to go through the article and fix any minor errors that I can find. I should be able to do this today, so expect another FAC visit from me either today or tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know I am still sore as you left the TH White quote out of it...(jut kidding) ... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struck most of the second round of comments and left a few notes. None of the unstruck comments are vital in terms of my supporting this. Expect a final round of comments soon, as I believe this is ready and want to move it along. Keep up the great work. Giants2008 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AFD of Maree Sole

Hi Dweller - thought I'd mention to you that I know Maree personally and can vouch for what's on the page. There should be no difficulty in finding web sources for a lot of it either.

However, I have to say that I too would think that userfying this makes more sense than having it as an article (she's not that notable). By way of comparison, a few years back I realised I was about as notable as a lot of people with articles on WP, so wrote a "non-article" on myself as a user subpage. Another editor, noticing my name in the text of several articles, "un-userfied" it by turning it into an article. I brought it to AfD myself, where the !vote went narrowly for re-userfication (about 5 !votes to 3, IIRC). The information covered in Maree's article covers her work in science fiction fandom, and that alone. Mine covers very similar work in fandom plus quite a bit of work in other fields where I'm of borderline notability (published writer, artist with several solo exhibitions, television appearances, etc). If my article is right on the cusp of notability, Maree's falls below that level by some way, despite her sterling work in fandom. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

| Dear User:Dweller, I've carefully looked through the text of the Maree Sole farce and it would seem that you are the one who stripped some 80% of the text from the page citing copyright violation and then turning around and tagging the page for deleation.

| Can you clarify how there could be copyright violation of the text as it _was_ dictated to me by Maree in her own home? Later, additional text was emailed to me after we discussed on the phone additional text to include on the page? I do have additional information to add, however, I would like to sort a few things out first.

| Many thanks,

| --Timelord2067 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurling AFD

Hey dude. Hope you're alright, send me a mail or something. I've made a contribution in the aforementioned AFD, don't worry too much about your "muddled" thoughts... happens to the best of us! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables can be overdone in my opinion. There is an argument that it could be considered trivia, either as a bullet list or a table, and like we had to do for the stats bit for ITFC and NCFC, writing out as prose is probably a better solution than either list or table.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see the advantage of tabulating it. So I guess we should leave it as is? After all, it's only a lone voice in the wilderness who's making a point about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... how we doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I noticed a while ago was a request to add "registration required" for cricinfo links which, while it's ok, I think it would overwhelm the ref's because there are so many uses of cricinfo... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note at the top of the section for Cricinfo. As for Buc's ordering issue, the order in which fields are place is determined by the template, not by the order in which you type them into the template itself. I'll take another look but as far as I could tell there was nothing we could do about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my note not good enough for you now?! I've also investigated my "claim" of the cite web template behaviour and guess what? I was actually right. So I've explained that to Buc in the FAC. I found two rogue full stops in the citations for page numbers and they're gone. Is there anything else cite web wise you're worried about? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Well jolly good show. Do shout if you need anything further. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Buc but not much else to work on unless I missed something? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman

TBH, I think it is featured quality now, "Bradmanesque" even. Most of my remaining issues with the article were discussed at PR and on the talk page and relate to his relationship with his team-mates. While it is well-covered in the talk page, the article is light on about the split between Bradman and the "Catholic clique". While not quite Ulster, Australia was split down the middle socially by religion and this was especially severe between the wars. O'Reilly despised Bradman as a person, "I am inclined to think that in a lot of ways Bradman did a tremendous amount of damage to Australian cricket." (Williams p. 153.) and coming from him it is hard to put that down to jealously or intimidation. However, that has been discussed to death and consensus was to keep what was there and have the detail in the sub-article and I am comfortable with that.

My other concern relates to the use of statistics. I used to be a huge stats fan and could quote averages etc. Nowadays, I find that their overuse sometimes makes reading an article like examining a spreadsheet (I do that sort of thing for a living). I would use less, but I know consensus is against that as well. Personally, while the Davis stuff is interesting, for me it would merit a sentence or two, not a paragraph and a table. The graph with the highest averages would work just as well if everyone below say, Sutcliffe was removed. However, I feel I have had my say at PR and on the talk page and raising them again at FAC would be akin to forum shopping. I have tossed up supporting the article—it clearly meets the Featured article criteria, even if I would do things slightly differently—but I am unsure that a seemingly "drive-by" support from a project member would be seen as constructive. One problem with a wide range of reviewers before FAC is that they sometime feel constrained from supporting. I am keeping an eye on the FAC and where I feel I can comment, I am. Good luck with the nomination, I am certain it will pass. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closures

They look pretty good to me. :) NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes

If you've got something for News and notes, leave a note on the tipline; if you're a neutral party or it's nothing controversial, you can, if you're interested, also write the paragraph about whatever you'd like covered, and I'll credit you in the byline. Ral315 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

Hey Dweller - sorry for the late response, I've had a lot on over the last week. All parties have accepted the mediation so I've just proposed you as the mentor. Could you keep an eye on it as well to see when it gets accepted? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to rock and roll if you are. One user hasn't agreed yet, but he hasn't edited for over three weeks, so we're safe to on without him. I'll keep a watch over the case if you want but if you have any problems you know where I am. We always do mediations on the RfM talk page, so in this casee it will be Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing - once you've sorted out exactly what needs to be mediated, it's often good to get an opening statement from everyone - just so you know where they stand on the issues at hand. It helps to clarify the dispute even further, and why it's reached that stage. You don't have to do this, but I'd certainly consider it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Ryan P copied over the mediation to the talk page, the "additional issues" section got cut. Is this deliberate (to keep the list of issues from expanding unmanageably, for instance), or unintentional? The list of issues was pretty much drawn up by Student7 and reflects his understanding of the disputes, which isn't precisely the same as mine, at least. I hadn't added any points to the "additional issues" section, figuring that it would be wasted work if the mediation got rejected, and that I'd have a chance to do so if the mediation was accepted. Has the train left the station on this? --Groggy Dice T | C 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection has expired and the skirmishing has resumed, so hopefully mediation can get rolling as soon as possible. --Groggy Dice T | C 07:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement

We're on the same page. You just thought it through further than I did. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Everyone thinks so. I'm indeed a fan of the Green, but a different one, which until recently was a source of copious tears. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Bradman stuff

Seen Buc's recent edits? I'm not sure. I know we're dead keen to cite things which could be questioned but he's removing references which are repeated. I'm certain we should keep references next to quotes, regardless of whether they're repeats or not, but as for the others, I'm not sure. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw your userpage. Hope you're ok. Just do a diff on the history from now to about half an hour ago, you'll see what Buc's up to if you have the chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stress not, I'll handle it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is fixed, and he's been informed. Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did it was because they are refs linked a few lines later with no other ref in between. It's something I've done many times for other FAC and no ones had a problem with before. Buc (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've pointed Buc to this guideline: "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment. The source of the material should always be clear. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken." - which doesn't preclude the current referencing in any way, shape or form. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on Donald Bradman becoming a featured article. I noticed that you've listed Brian Lara as a future project. I'd like to help in any way that I can.Abeer.ag (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous! - my congratulations to you and the whole team who got this article up to scratch. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 12:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, well done. A great cornerstone of the FT. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And from me too. Nice work, well perservered! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Toe-to-toe at the FAC, I enjoyed it! Anyway, what's next?! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokes. Hope you're okay. Let me know if I can be of use in anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! I am looking at taking Ian Johnson (cricketer) to FAC in the next week or two. The FT is now starting to take shape! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Brown (cricketer) is ready with the info and to be honest I appear to be out of form at the moment as far as copyediting goes. The info should all be in order. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you can look at 1948 Ashes series for the structure since you have worked on a series FA before and I have only done bios. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alletson

You're welcome. It was actually a poster on the newsgroup uk.sport.cricket who pointed out the error, so I thought that I'd better fix it. JH (talk page) 17:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for the football pointers. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons

i know i keep asking but could you help me with the seasons part of norwich please i am fed up of only me putting the input in. please Screechy 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well just like keeping it update if possible. i am trying myself but i am finding it boring if i am the only one that updates it. Screechy 16:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zorro Episodes

That's fine - I was just concerned that it was ambiguous. It works fine if you want the 1990 TV series episodes, but not if you wanted an episode list from any of the other numerous versions. That aside, the 1990 version is the only one that has an episode list in WP :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Jackson

Hi Dweller. Do you think there is any chance of getting Archie Jackson on the Main Page on 5 September, the 100th anniversary of his birth. With Bradman possibly on a week earlier, it may be pushing it a bit. Do you think it is worth having a shot? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that would be the case and I entirely agree that Bradman should take priority. Once again poor Jackson stands in Bradman's shadow! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch everything I have said. I was a year out! The 100th anniversary of Jackson's death is not until 5 September 1909. Alls well that ends well as they say. Thanks for the advice anyway. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits

Much appreciate your cleanup work on the catholic diocese list. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Page and The Don

On a random trip to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests, I noticed a new pending requests template. The purpose is to help sort requests in advance. You might want to put Bradman on the template to make sure the day isn't taken. The only possible problem is if people think there will be too many athlete bios on the front page; Yao Ming is already on the template. Giants2008 (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Good Day

Resolved

– image added Darkspots (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/maam I am a new user here in wikipedia so i cannot edit protected articles like Angel locsin, i am only just concern of the article because it has no image. I am calmly requesting you to Put this image Angel_in_Dubai.jpg click here to see the image, the image was already proven licensed under creative commons and it was already inspected by Flickreviewer,please put it inside Angel Locsin's article with the caption of Angel Locsin at the Lobo Tour in Dubai. Please give me your kindness. Thankyou so much. God Bless You! Watcher Wiki (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey

What's going down? My contributions recently have been Featured List, Featured List, Featured List. Oh, and a bit of Featured List! You ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 23:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Gray

As you are aware of you recently deleted a page I created under this name.The player as commented did not fail the conditions stated in the previoius talk page for the last article. And the original article ,like this one was deleted before I could add new information. As I am collecting new information currently on this players further footballing career abroad, the article will be re-added with new material added. Therefore there will be NO!reason to yet again delete a valid article about this player. So please next time if you could query me before "speedy" deleting all my work then it will be much appreciated. I understand your efforts to improving and keeping the website tidy and clean, but please do not just delete an article without checking and making an enquiry about the player, as it is obvious you deleted the article without looking any further than that page. Thankyou + Regards --Footballgy (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian cricket tours of Sri Lanka"

I think that category is there because the Australian party put in at Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) on their way to England, and played one match there, as described in the article. Whether that amounts to a tour is debatable! JH (talk page) 16:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to write to you myself but John has got here first. I think that the category is needed for completeness re our Sri Lankan coverage. We have tried to document all overseas tours (or visits) to Ceylon and Sri Lanka before it became a Test nation; and they all need to be suitably categorised. 1948 was an important visit that did much to increase cricket's popularity in Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, it is in instances like this that the word "tour" is inappropriate. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was beaten to the punch here as well. I agree with BlackJack that the category is needed. Thanks for the work on Johnson. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys seeing this on your watchlists, or are you curious about my contribs? Thanks for the feedback... I have no objection to the Cat existing, but I find it inappropriately placed on an article about a tour of England. What have I misunderstood? --Dweller (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist, with the FT drive and all. The reason the category belongs on the article is as JH says: The Australian team played one match in Sri Lanka on their way to the UK and this match is discussed in this article. As such, if the category is to be comprehensive, this article should be included. If you would prefer we could split the Sri Lanka section of the tour from this article into its own to include in the category but I don't really think that is necessary. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're monitoring your work so that we can enjoy a good cackle among ourselves! The thing is that it was effectively a two-stage tour (disproportionately) and there isn't really enough for the Ceylon bit to be a separate article; but the Ceylon prelude is a significant part of the entire Invincibles tour, as are the selection process and the pre-tour games in Australia. From the point of view of Sri Lanka coverage, we do need this article in its tour category. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll revert myself if someone else hasn't already. If you like a good cackle you should have seen a ham-fisted bunch of edits I made a week or two back. I had a bad couple of hours, lol. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should see my efforts with Peregrine Maitland. I've tried to cover my tracks with a redirect. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imran

Has his original talk page been lost somewhere in all the page moves? --Dweller (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've fixed it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		Dweller, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral.

All the best, Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit

I'm a bit confused as to what you did here - it looks like you're changing Cosmic Latte's vote as if it were your own. Maybe you were aiming somewhere else? I dunno. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, somebody else helped me - you appear to have edited an older version of the page. Think you can fix it? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, no idea how that happened. Weird edit conflict? Looks like Cosmic is fixing it. Apologies if it happened because of some carelessness on my behalf, but frankly I'm flummoxed. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: post on my talk page

Sorry, I didn't see your post until just now. I appreciate your offer. Can you tell me what you're thinking? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as me not being a content contributor, you are definitely correct. I have never really liked writing. My sole major contribution is expanding John Rutledge, but it failed its GAN rather easily. Do you think it is good enough to prove that I understand what it takes to sit down and write?

As far as your suggestions go, I am not sure if I should change my editing patterns so much, because, I think it would be rather obvious why I was doing it. I mean, why else would someone make 45000 vandal-reverts and then start getting involved with XFD and peer review? Aside from that, I, well, I just don't really like doing stuff other than vandal-patrol. I fix typos, poor grammar, and poor formatting if I see them, but that is about it. My XFD experience is limited primarily to either contested prods or articles that I see have been nominated while I am patrolling Special:Newpages. I rarely just go to XFD just for the heck of it. As far as my non-admin closures, the only time I have ever closed an AFD was when the article in question was speedily deleted or if the nominator withdrew with no "delete" !votes. I really don't think I should change what I am doing, because if I did, it would only be to pass an RFA. I hate to write it that way, because it seems as though I am being very condescending, but I am not trying to use that tone. (damn this keyboard!!!) I appreciate your offer and your advice, but I just don't know what the right thing to do is. *sigh* J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not quite sure how I should respond here, "wow" is mainly what I'm thinking now, um, yeah. I think I am civil and responsive, but obviously I don't go through my own contributions very frequently, and my opinion of myself is likely to be slightly biased... Most of my interactions with others are in response to a message on my talk page or are a result of my talk page stalking tendencies. Other than from my own talk page, I have made quite a few edits to User talk:Keeper76, User talk:Iridescent, and User talk:Moonriddengirl. I also hang out on WP:AN and WP:ANI sometimes, but perusing those pages' archives for evidence of my human interaction skills may be a little difficult. :)

Either way, I cannot explain to you by merely typing how much I appreciate your offer, and I would be honored to accept. (or would it be "honoured to accept"? Looking at your userpage, it seems you live in the UK... :D )

I was wondering, though... How did you come to start looking through my contributions? I glanced at your last 2500 contributions, and looked at your RfA to see how you became an admin. You seem to exhibit rather well the exact antithesis of my editing patterns. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Cricket Clothing

Hi, regarding the page move there was no discussion on it. As it was a relatively unedited page (compared to something like Wii for example)and there had not been many contributions to it, I thought it would have been a relatively uncontroversial move as appeared to be showed when another editor came along and fixed the page title rather than undoing the page move. Hope that helps! BigHairRef | Talk 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, I wouldn't have objected if it had been moved back to the Flannels page boldly, but you're right regarding that I should have dropped you a notice. I usually do but I suppose the fact the article hadn't been edited in a while left me with a blind spot.

I don't intend to edit the article any futher so whatever the outcome I don't mind where it's moved to or merged. Have fun witht he discussion and if you want a contrib to it I'll be happy to put my oar in if it's wanted otherwise I'll leave it to the guys who frequent the prohect. BigHairRef | Talk 19:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Pattinson

I removed the stats as as far as I could see it was referencing his player profile page on Cricinfo, which will probably be rewritten over the course of his career. The stats should be included, however, so I was possibly a bit hasty on that one. JP (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFA nomination

I would be happy to accept your offer. Do you want me to transclude it or do you want to do it? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll guess I'll just transclude it myself. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kurt's "prima facie" oppose

(Copy pasted from Kurt's talk) As revealed to myself recently, Kurt's "prima facie" oppose is just a tactic to try and change Wikipedia to what he believes to be "better". He has no intention of reducing drama, reducing drama would reduce the attention he gets, reducing the attention would be detrimental to his "cause" as people wouldn't even know about it. That, essentially, is what Kurt is doing. And we're all being rather obviously manipulated. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I understand. :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, quite simply, not the case at all. I'm afraid you've chosen a rather disingenous interpretation of our recent e-mail exchange that is in no way supported by anything I actually wrote. Am I trying to change Wikipedia to the way I think it should be? You bet--but aren't we all? But am I deliberately seeking out drama as a means to that end? Absolutely not--and nothing I said could be remotely interpreted to mean that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, on J. Delanoy's RFA--I didn't give a short, one-word answer ("robot") because I wanted people to go apeshit over it. It seemed to me that my actual meaning would be quite clear to anyone who had bothered to read the preceding opposes. Clearly, I erred either in that judgment, or in thinking that people would have the sense to pay attention to the context in which it was said. I don't plan on doing that again. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to Dweller) If kurt is not amenable to creating the essay, you could always add a section to User:Giggy/On Kurt and RfA with the various opposes and links to diffs where He has so graciously explained or clarified things. xeno (talk)

Looks like Kurt is amenable. It's clearly preferable for Kurt to state his viewpoint for himself, rather than for someone like me to try to summarise it for him. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, if he does it himself, all the better. xeno (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note

Thanks. I'm doing OK.

I, well, I think you know what it's like... always checking to see what's new as soon as I get back to my computer from basically anything.

Yeah, anyways...

ttyl

J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: If you pop back in...

Hi there- its been a while since I edited in my amateurish fashion, on wikipedia, so I'm surprised you remember me. Anyways, can I help on some cricket related articles? I have a fairly extensive cricket library inc. about 20 Wisdens, Pollard, and a few other things, and a bit stored away in the old brain.

Oh and thanks for saying hi. BTW, have we interacted before?

Eusebius12 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Bay Morris

Greetings.

I have been compiling some information on my talk page for a new page titled Moreton Bay Morris.

As you seem to be one who judges what does and does not constitute enough information for a subject, could you cast an eye over my talk page at your conveniance and give me an oppinion on how much further information might be required?

Thank you. --Timelord2067 (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just the slightest bit confused... Is User:Timelord2067/sandbox where I put my articles? - I have made some examples on that page. Also, in your above reply (User:Dweller) you started a page User:Timelord2067/Maree_Sole for me, if I started a page User:Timelord2067/Moreton_Bay_Morris does this then get er, "monitored" for frequency of use? Thanks for both replys, --Timelord2067 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King

Hi
Well, since you asked: [1]. It's on the Warner Bros. page, *but* the article still doesn't fulfill WP:NFF since the production itself is notable can't really be claimed here. Thus I'm not asking you to restore that article, at least not until it's out.
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Edited to add: the publisher of a movie can't of course always be considred reliable, but with a release date he's as reliable as it gets. --Amalthea (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That edit

I've sent you a lovely rambling mail. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MI-5 Persecution

As much as I hate to say goodbye to a baby, I think you were very Solomon with the way that you handled the decision. MMetro (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor separating out Ashes Tests information from tour articles

You really poked a stick into a wasp's nest with this one. WT:CRIC is bursting at the seams!!!

-) All the best.

By the way, I notice that Fergie in his interview yesterday had a lot to say about the Super Reds and Arsenal; dismissed Chelsea Pensioners and City; but didn't even mention Delia's lads. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unpleasantness

You should stay away from those shock sites.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBC Deletion

Thanks for the welcome! Are camp wiki articles generally deleted? Clearly it was bad, I was planning on fixing it but sort of jumped the gun in creating it. Any suggestions? Also, there are two pages on the same organization, how can I suggest one be deleted? Thanks again, and great editing work (Boston Love (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

so p***ed off

i was putting the table fixture thing up for the norwich season city 2008-09 on my page, and making it all look nice and stuff and i closed the window made mistake, 2 things 1) is there anyway i can get tht back 2 where i was before i pressed x 2) if not could u do it for me please, i no i keep asking really would mean alot if you di do it for me cheers Screechy 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]