User talk:Dweller

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Operation Alf Ramsey
This editor will not rest until Alf Ramsey is a FA

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2015

Also pinging User:The Rambling Man. Gratz on getting this through in time, guys. The lead (copied to the TFA page) is currently 1455 characters; the limit for TFA (so far) is 1300 characters, and 1250 would be better. Would either of you like to trim it a bit? - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now down to 1354, almost there. - Dank (push to talk) 10:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, around 1250 now, thanks much TRM. - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

אצטדיון

It would be best not to create articles in Hebrew when you cannot write in Hebrew. Articles that are 4 words only are doomed anyway. all the best. --Yoavd (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoavd I was managing to, but someone deleted the article while I was working on it. It'd be lovely if you could create a stub article there for me. --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrow Road

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

Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no worries, old boy and thanks for the nice message. --Dweller (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good old days...

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

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

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

OK, I'll go back underground now. Cheers Manning (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a charming message, thanks! I really like the way I'm now feeling like a 10 year newbie. Feel free to help yourself to some free spectacles. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the opposite - some pretty awful behaviour from Those In Positions of Power from '05 to '08, which is one of the reasons I ran for arbcom. Thankfully the people in power became more responsible or were replaced by more responsible ones....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were some oddities in my early days, but it does seem that those very early days were halcyon. Imagine the fun of starting the article on Ant. And with a terrible joke, no less. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - interesting. Dunno. the polishedness of what we create now at FAC I find impressive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the old FAs I've looked at have made my jaw drop. Some of that is that they've degraded over time, but mostly that'd be a charitable view. I think well-intentioned RfA !voters asking for 1FA inadvertently prevented standards from rising faster, because I think the fall-off in 1FA demands just preceded the massive jump in FA standards [OR alert]. Also, I remember there was this mad dash to try to match German Wikipedia's % of FAs. Why, I have no idea. I think we've got the standard about right now - very demanding, but definitely achievable. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. My impression was a bit different. I never thought things went backwards as such, merely improved slowly and steadily over time. Agree about being demanding but achievable; only thing is this promotes improving narrower rather than broader articles due to the difficulties of covering all bases with the latter.....which is why I pushed the Core Contest.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying things went backwards, I'm saying that progress was slow until 1FA in particular became old hat. The Core Contest is a terrific idea. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

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

Alex Neil

I've reverted your move - undiscussed, controversial, and the standard has always been to still list them as 'footballer' even if they are (debatable) more prominent as a manager. Giant Snowman 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. The move was discussed at the talk page, which you have now moved back to Talk:Alex Neil (footballer). If Alex Ferguson was a disambiguation page, would you move the manager's article to Alex Ferguson (footballer)? --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:2015_ICC_World_Twenty20_Qualifier regarding Let to know No result or Abandoned. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please help me to resolution by your comments at DRN. Srinu ^{(Talk | contrib)} 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:77.202.224.9

Thanks for your kind comments at the talk page for an earlier IP address of mine. I am still smarting from the treatment I received on Wikipedia in March, but maybe I'll get over it and come back. But even yesterday, I was accused of vandalism on Virgil van Dijk simply because I made an error and was too slow correcting it. Although the accusation was grudgingly withdrawn, I received no apology. I used to enjoy editing here but Wikipedia has attracted too many people who have an attitude problem and have forgotten to AGF and that we do this in our own spare time. Editing as an IP is a damn site harder and slower than as a registered user, what with the Capcha device to prevent spam and the lack of access to all the tools I had previously. I might come back one day, who knows. Thanks again and keep up the good work on Sir Alf Ramsey. Best wishes. 77.130.197.6 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC) (formerly known as Bikeroo).[reply]

77.130.197.6 Come on back when you're ready, we'll be happy to have you. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of us would be. CUs, for instance, already hate you for editing while logged out, because it can only be that you are "avoiding scrutiny". Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some users have good reason for editing while logged out. Others do not. The CUs are well aware of this. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

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

Resolved

Thanks to User:NQ --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

A kitten for you!

I love this page. here is a kitten to show it.

Life Of A Wiki Amatuer (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests from TT

Please move Help:Contents/Browse to Help:Menu.

To match its actual title.

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

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

Thank you again.

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

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

No, not done yet, though I'm not in a hurry. Just a couple janitorial tasks for cleaning up the help department, to pave the way for adjusting page names to match the page titles. Glad to see you are still an active Wikipedian. The Transhumanist 04:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do these tasks. Can you point me to the discussions, so I can be sure I'm not screwing something up? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any discussions. But they are simple non-controversial cleanup (to fix awkward page names). Easy to reverse if needed. The Transhumanist 07:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Dweller (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Help:Menu and its subpages work fine.

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

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

Done --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move complete.

I've tracked down and updated most of the main Help:Contents/Browse links to Help:Menu. Will do the same for links to the directory. The Transhumanist 11:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done The Transhumanist 12:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have done it without you. Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Bus Routes

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

Can you see redirects?

The Wikipedia:Tip of the day/January 6 provides a way to tell them apart from regular links. The Transhumanist 01:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist I'm afraid I don't really understand the question, never mind the answer. Go gently with me, I'm an IT thicko. --Dweller (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can update one of your .js files (like personal settings) to run various scripts, one of which displays redirects in a different colour. I run one which displays dabs in yellow, redirects in green etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in Watchlist? Why would that be useful? PS Hello. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean in an article, so that you can tell if a wikilink is to a redirect or to another article. I'm also not sure why that would be useful and I worry some of our more OCD editors might be tempted to make sure all the links in an article are blue in breach of WP:NOTBROKEN. WJBscribe (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Transhumanist What prompted all of this? --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

note

I tried. :-) — Ched : ? 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football

Can you help improving Liga II, to create the missing seasons. Thank you ! --Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm not sure what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to create the football league seasons. The second one is not created yet : 1935–36 Divizia B.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm still rather puzzled. I don't really like football seasons articles, even for countries that I know something about, as they don't feel that encyclopedic to me. Nonetheless, I accept that consensus is that they may be notable. However, more fundamentally, I don't know anything about football in Romania, so I'm not an obvious choice for this request. Why not create it yourself? --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will create it myself, but there is a lot to edit, and I current write in Cupa Romaniei, and other articles, I have many to improve, at least can you edit here : EMF miniEURO, there are only a few seasons missing. Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why not find someone who edits here on Romanian football? I already have a lengthy to-do list that I'm not getting to. --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 31 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help[reply]

OTD

I don't see anything wrong with the term Franco-American.

– Due in part to the spaghetti connection, it sounds kind of silly to American ears. Yorktown ended the American Revolutionary War, after all – though arguably that should be called the American War of Independence. Sca (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blame American ignorance if that term means spaghetti. This is, after all, English language Wikipedia, and doesn't and shouldn't be tailored specifically for a US audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect from a squalid American such as Sca (talk) – ?

I don't understand the relevance of your second sentence - what do you mean? --Dweller (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally referred to as the American Revolution, not the Franco-American one.

However, QPQ, we could make it Germano-British forces. Sca (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But there was a French army at Yorktown. In a similar way to the Battle of Marston Moor, in the so-called First English Civil War (which wasn't the first) when an English force was defeated by an Anglo-Scottish one. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: War (2007)

If Tom Lone is Still alive, then Are you Saying that Tom Lone changed his [Identity Card Name] to Rogue at the End of this Film? 50.173.3.162 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi 50.173.3.162. I've not seen the film - I just quoted our article. Sorry I can't be more helpful! By the way, why not register for an account? It's free, takes about 2 minutes and really helps with communication. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Wickethewok

Per your comment here, apparently they are still 'around'. Did you notice this edit? 220 of ^Borg 05:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. Thanks for the heads-up. You're very on the ball! --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, er, I was updating the wp:Missing Wikipedians page, and often the "last edit" date is wrong because editors have come back.So I was checking a few contribution histories, noticed Wickethewok had been back which took me to their talk page, where I saw a comment by you, and your link there took me to the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Archive. So I dropped my note here. 220 of ^Borg 10:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh. Nice work. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clio the Muse

Can you please expand on why you did this? There is nothing at all unpleasant about that exchange and it should not have been deleted. It is clear to me, and probably to the other editors on that thread as well, that Clio the Muse was a fake. That much is proved by the evidence presented on the thread. Any "unpleasantness" resides in the fact that someone pulled the wool over our eyes for so long. So please could you explain and revert your deletion. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because grave-dancing and attempted outing are both unacceptable. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are saying. There is no grave to dance upon (Clio never existed, remember), and I would have thought that exposing a purported Wikipedia editor as a sham was a perfectly normal and natural thing to do around here. See also [1]. --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if you don't understand how this is gravedancing and outing (and, to be frank, some of it borders on creepy stalking), I can't possibly explain it to you. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it, do you. There is no-one to stalk. Still lovesick, are we? --Viennese Waltz 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stop now before it becomes playground behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First you say stop it, now you say continue discussion. Which is it to be? --Viennese Waltz 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said stop talking like you're in a playground. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your edit summary on the fake user's page is quite wrong. The deletion most certainly is unexplained. Dweller has refused to give his reasons for doing so in this discussion, beyond spurious claims of grave-dancing and stalking which I have shown to be completely false. So where do we go from here? --Viennese Waltz 16:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go and do something useful (like editing something other than a "fake user talk page"), and I'll do the same (as I have been doing for the past ten or so years). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Dweller/VeryFirstTo

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craig Kieswetter/archive1

Thanks for your thoughts on the England Test results lists, they remain very much a work in progress overall! In the meantime, I wonder if you've got the time and inclination to take a look over Craig Kieswetter for me, which I've nominated for FA status. Harrias ^talk 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Harrias. Btw, did you see my suggested bit for the Lead that I left on your usertalk? --Dweller (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugh, yes, I'd forgotten all about that! I'm a bit all over the place at the moment, chasing my own tail. Hopefully I'll get some work done on that tonight, although I think my wife has other plans! Harrias ^talk 10:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that feeling. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some unexpected time off work (sick daughter) has given me a chance to do some work on both Kieswetter and the England Test results today, any further thoughts would be appreciated. Harrias ^talk 11:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Thanks for the welcome. I removed the whole thing from yesterday's page & reposted it on today's page. Please cast your vote over there as well. Chris8924 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you caste your vote yet [over here. I deleted the earlier post since you said it should be on today's page. So, need your vote again.Chris8924 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request

Dear Dweller,

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

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

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

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

Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

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

Please. The Transhumanist 12:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Security review RfC

Hi Dweller, was this supposed to be support or oppose? :P Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful, thanks. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Eyes_please.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Shenanigans at the reference desk

I see you're a Norwich City fan. If you delve into the mess you'll see that Future Perfect at Sunset lives in a fantasy land. He says in the course of a rambling 81 - word sentence in which he misspells the word "superseded" and uses the word "ass" to mean something other than a donkey

multiple sections being reinserted by edit warring socks multiple times, sometimes for weeks, keeping old threads from being archived because of all the bogus sock traffic on them.

He gets one thing right - the "sock traffic" claim is indeed bogus. The idea that the archiving bot

thinks that a post is from a sock and
holds up archiving on that account

shows the yawning gulf between him and reality. If confirmation of this is needed it is his claim that these "socks" have been grabbing sections from the archive -

multiple sections being reinserted by edit warring socks multiple times, sometimes for weeks.

If you look at the TOCs on the reference desk pages you will see that the sections are added by enquirers, remain for about a week and then disappear into the archives forever in a perfectly orderly fashion. All the best, 86.143.83.10 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to Norwich City, unless you're implying that Canaries have a better/worse relationship with "fantasy land" than most.

I don't want to go into the detail of your comments at all (in fact, I'd quite like it if you'd remove the ad-hominem ones).

That said, I've been mulling the idea of opening a consensus discussion at the Ref Desk talk page re protection for some time, but I'd much rather that the protecting admin did this themselves, as I do think admins should be collegiate and it's by far the classiest option.

Future Perfect at Sunrise, what do you think? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dweller, you mind closing this thread? The OP is the same person disrupting the reference desks and the reason why Future Perfect protected them. Any kind of discussion with them just leads to more trolling. If you need more specifics, I'll provide it to you. Elockid ^{Message me} 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]