User talk:Dweller/Archive2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yeah (Yello song)[edit]

Oh yeah! Thanks for your help. File:Yello - Oh Yeah excerpt.ogg 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Converted {{listen}} of the file above to a link, due to non-free media copyright. — xaosflux Talk 14:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get involved with FPAS[edit]

This. He blocked me for restoring a post from one of these IPs on my very own talkpage before going on to accuse me of enabling sockpuppets. It's simply not worth it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I think that if an administrator is going to make a crusade of stamping on a banned user or users, they ought to do so carefully and when they get it wrong, they ought to be made aware of it, so they can apologise profusely, fix the error and be more careful in future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, at least not with this individual. They've basically rendered the Ref Desks a warzone for absolutely no benefit. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on this occasion, he's hit me with his friendly fire. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, you (The Rambling Man) are one of the greatest vandal fighters in the history of Wikipedia. TRM, to see you cower from a belligerent user is shocking. Snap out of it, man!

Upon reading the above post, I became concerned. So I went to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and studied the edit histories. It looks like a bull was let loose in a china shop.

I came across this post, which FPAS removed without explanation. It looks like a valid question to me, so I restored the question and answered it with links to relevant material on Wikipedia.

If I get blocked over this, please reinstate me.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got reverted, and I posted questions to the reverter here. The Transhumanist 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have stirred up quite a debate. There's a lot under the surface here. It appears the conflict (with the troll), and the controversy over how to approach dealing with the conflict, has been going on for years. The Transhumanist 08:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will not get anywhere with FPAS. He feels he has a divine right to do just as he likes to destroy the utility of the ref desks. There have been multiple discussions over trying to solve the "problem" not just "treat" the symptoms, but to no avail. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus emerges and an individual refuses to go along with it, whoever they are, they'll get some uncomfortable scrutiny. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

Please move String to String (disambiguation), over redirect.

And then please delete the resulting redirect at String, to make way for a new article.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request[edit]

There were actually two requests above. No worries. Here's the second one again: Please delete String, to make way for new article. Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If you have a new article ready in user or draft space, link to it so it can be moved there instead. If you have the text ready, you can just replace the redirect text yourself. Regards SoWhy 08:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sorry, missed that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what new article could have such a strong claim to primary topic status for this very heavily ambiguous term "string" that it would be legitimate to place it on the unsuffixed title, displacing a disambiguation page. What is that new article, and why was this deletion request actioned without even an explanation of the requester's plans? Also, as long as there's a void at "String", users typing "String" in the searchbox currently end up at "STRING", an article on a (relatively) obscure topic. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Transhumanist Please urgently respond or one of us will undo the admin action I did for you in good faith. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller assumes good faith in me, because he knows that I don't make requests without good reason. There's a thread on the talk page of the disambiguation page. The {{Dabprimary}} tag has been on the disambiguation page since Aug 2015. I didn't have the ability to delete the page myself, and so I needed an admin's help to do so. Now that the base page is clear, I can fill the article there. As always, I appreciate the assist, Dweller. Thank you. And FPAS, thank you for the input. The Transhumanist 14:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Moved Draft:String to String. The Transhumanist 14:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I have to say I'm still far from satisfied with this move though, as I do not think it meets the standards of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'd ask for things to be moved back at least for the time being. I've given my reasoning at the talkpage thread you mentioned [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at Talk:String#Article instead of disambiguation page. There are responses to your reservations and your proposal there. Plus work on the article is well under way, with at least 2 editors working on it. Feel free to jump in and help. The more, the merrier. The Transhumanist 07:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FPAS, you've just used admin powers to override consensus and other editors in a debate in which you are a party. That violates WP:INVOLVED, and is an abuse of admin tools. You should not be using your admin powers to force your will upon other editors who you are in debate with concerning an editorial issue. That page was moved from Draft:String to String based upon the discussion at Talk:String (cord)#Article inst ead of disambiguation page. You moved the page String to String (cord), where it has never been before. You did this without consensus and without leaving a redirect, while we were in the middle of a discussion to keep it at String, even though you held the minority position in the discussion. You are not behaving impartially, or fairly. You shouldn't simply ignore everyone else and do what you want. You really should move it back until a new consensus is reached. The Transhumanist 11:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FPAS, first you made a proposal, then you went straight to implementation of it. The Transhumanist 08:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) The Transhumanist Create a new consensus discussion. You can't depend on 11 year old consensus. Have it out and then call for admin intervention. Sorry, but I should have checked better in this case. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of 5 factors. The other 4 were:
  1. A draft of the page was awaiting placement, an indication that its author favored the move.
  2. That the topic was the main context at the top of the disambiguation page for years.
  3. The fact that "string" is the oldest topic on the page, and obviously has historical primacy.
  4. My support, added to the author's mentioned above.
Together, those 5 factors provided sufficient reason to move the page. But, he previous thread (above) attracted FPAS' attention, and he noticed the thread below it and... TRM was right. :) The Transhumanist 11:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to move "String" to "String (disambiguation)[edit]

To resolve the matter above. Just a heads up, in case you want to monitor it, as you have been involved in an administrator capacity. Notices have also been placed at the talk pages of articles that may have a claim to primary topic status, including Talk:String (music), Talk:String (computer science), Talk:String (physics), and Talk:Strings (tennis). The Transhumanist 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

Hi! I have been asked to write up an editorial for The Signpost. It is at User:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial. Could you give it a quick look and correct any glaring errors you spot? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alf Ramsey[edit]

On 28 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alf Ramsey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alf Ramsey (pictured) led Ipswich Town to become English football champions four years before leading England to win the 1966 FIFA World Cup? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alf Ramsey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alf Ramsey), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clock on the request[edit]

It might be good to set a time limit for 😂 to reply. If no reply/comment is made within that time, then the request can either be approved or declined, whichever is deemed most appropriate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop them a line. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading[edit]

Thank you. I had already noticed and restored a more meaningful commentary. I did about 20 with that misleading summary before I realised. I have no idea how it changed (it must have been an accidental past change I made with a buffer full of stuff). -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Hello. I just found myself in need of making more than 300 edits assisted by AWB in less than an hour. (post-move cleanup). I suppose I must request a bot account? Do not worry, I havent carried it out yet --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't think there's a requirement to use a bot account for AWB. See WP:MEATBOT. If it's non-controversial and you can be sure each edit is good and the edit summaries are helpful, go for it. The "in less than an hour" worries me more than the bot-like editing. I'd suggest going slowly, at least at first a) to avoid errors and b) to give other users a chance to tell you you're getting it wrong! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you see, I will move Macron to Macron (diacritic) and Macron (disambiguation) to Macron , per community consensus. but over 1000 pages link to Macron and this should be fixed, otherwise it will be a mess --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's consensus, that's brilliant. Still advise going slow. There's no deadline. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AWB won't be a bot, you still need to accept the proposed changes, but there shouldn't be a problem (as long as you can install it and have permission to use it - most reasonably experienced editors are welcome to use it, judiciously). See WP:AWB. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am authorised. Ok,so, the move first, and then slowly with AWB(you see, it is the first time I need to make such a major post-move cleanup)--Kostas20142 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you for taking on the responsibility of cleaning up. Hope it goes well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
me too! --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bulwer-Lytton[edit]

Hello. I came across something in a book about a play called Money which led me to the playwright, who is better known for his novels. You may already know about one of his more famous original phrases but, if not, take a look. Jack | talk page 12:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I see the link pointed to on my user page has been removed. I'll have to replace it some time.--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it...[edit]

Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to piss on the parade, but most of my quibbles were unfixable without some discussion. I know, I'm a pain in the arse... CassiantoTalk 08:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the review, Cassianto. TRM and I are always happy to improve stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One way trip[edit]

Here you go, trivial in the scheme of things, but just another brick in the wall from the clandestine machinations of a group who are interested only in curing symptoms, not causes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki linking[edit]

Actually, we often link to articles in other Wikipedias when one is not available, in fact so much so there's a template to help you do it: {{ill}}. Gerda often uses it when she's writing on the slightly more obscure German composers, locations and works. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Should I replace it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Tennis Hall of Fame[edit]

I saw your tentative tennis tinker today there. Fancy spending all that free time you have right now tarting it up a bit more and then co-nominating for FLC? Beats dwelling (forgive me) on the big things... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might just do that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I'm finding article enhancements to be quite therapeutic. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we're here for after all. Can I remind you of my Suggestions_for_wikistressed_editors? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obstructing the field[edit]

This one is mint. Roy given out tonight obstructing the field, it's as rare as rocking horse poop. The article is close to okay, I suggest, when time and energy allows, we can make this one to be proud of. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

92.62.8.1[edit]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you unblocked the reference desk nazi. I'd suggest reblocking, but he IP hops enough that it won't matter. —Guanaco 15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I made a mistake and like to tidy up after myself. If I knew for sure he was a bad'un, I might block him again, but I'm lacking the mysterious sixth sense some others have and until then, I'll wait to see a blockable offence. Of course, someone else will probably whack him first. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Anarchyte's talk page.
Message added 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You might be interested in the on-going discussion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Dweller. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Re.
Message added 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GABgab 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SashiRolls[edit]

Recently I blocked this user. They have taken very serious exception to the language used, both on their talk page and in the block log and I am getting emails threatening suits for defamation etc. As far as I can tell, they don't object to the block as such, just the description of the reasons. They say they'd be happy to be blocked as NOTHERE but object to the remainder of the description and want it changed. User:28bytes has already blanked their talk page, I gather in response to a request off-wiki. They are now badgering me to change the description in the block log. I've explained that I lack the technical capability to do this, but they insist that all I need do is contact a 'crat to get it done.

So, out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting that a 'crat review the block, the message I left on the talk page and the description in the log and, if they feel it is necessary, change the block log to only mention NOTHERE. That's if 'crats have the technical capability to modify the block log - of which I am uncertain. GoldenRing (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, no one has the ability to amend an existing block log entry, not counting a Foundation technical employee who could "hack" it but of course wouldn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has such an ability, per Special:ListGroupRights it's oversighters (rights "deletelogentry", "suppressionlog", cf. mw:Manual:RevisionDelete). You might want to contact them. Regards SoWhy 13:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Crat and an Oversighter. I agree that it's not in Crat toolbox and I believe it is in the Oversighter - I've never suppressed a block log entry, am unsure about how to do it and even less sure that it's within policy. I'm going to take this to my user talk and do some homework. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a case of WP:OS#Policy #2a, i.e. which should only be removed on advice of the WF counsel. I don't think it fits #2b because there is some argument to keeping it, e.g. so that future admins know about it when deciding whether to unblock. Regards SoWhy 14:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the username is not the user's real name (on his talk page he talks about concerns regarding outing) it cannot be 2b and it doesn't fall into any other policy area, to my understanding. As such, I'm going to consult the list, which includes counsel. Thanks guys, be patient. Pinging: GoldenRing and SashiRolls for opportunities to correct my understanding, in case it's flawed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much in line with what I was thinking. My gut feel is that this will come to nothing, but given this guy is at least talking seriously about talking to lawyers and the CNIL (the French data protection watchdog) it might be best if WMF legal had a look, if they're willing. Note that SashiRolls is blocked and has TP and email access revoked. GoldenRing (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, there is a visibility control on log view check the log item, then access the visibility control. There are normally 3 options for admins to rev delete a log entry, OS's may have another? — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dweller, as oversighters, we could technically hide the block rationale; view the full block log, check the square box, and it's one of the options. But I don't think it's even close to justified here. GoldenRing, I assume this person has your email address, since they're apparently emailing you after email access was removed. Just put emails from this guy on autoreject. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. too slow yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Floq. That's what I worked out, too, but I try to be both as helpful as possible to users and super careful with my tool use, so I've emailed the list for others' opinions. Weirdly, I haven't received a copy myself, which makes me wonder if I've fallen off the distribution somehow... --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming you mean the OS or functionaries lists, I haven't seen it yet. This has happened to me before; I thought emails from actual members of the list should go straight thru, but it seems like amybe they have to be filtered and/or curated and/or approved. It usually takes mine up to an hour for *new* threads; then replying is near instantaneous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, Wikipedia's software tells me you've sent me some emails. None have arrived as yet. Don't worry, I'll read them all carefully [when they've arrived] but please don't deluge me - it'll be counter-productive. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his account have e-mail disabled? Or predating June 29th? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, any and all admins have the technical ability to delete an entry in a block log (similar to revision deletion), though not the ability to modify. However, policy explicitly forbids us from using this technical ability in all but the most extreme of circumstances (basically a situation that would require oversight anyway). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm now in email contact with SashiRolls. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoldenRing This is something you really shouldn't worry about. Your statements are both factual and highly unlikely to cause damage. Defamation (in the US) requires they affirmatively prove the statement was false and caused harm. If you were actually to be sued for performing a valid admin function, the WMF likely would provide you with legal assistance. This is almost certainly bluster, though. The "I'll sue you" nonsense isn't that unusual to see as an admin. ~ Rob13Talk 15:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralizationsAreBad[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad 2 is up and awaiting your co-nomination. (Sorry for stealing your thunder ... again) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Best image[edit]

Flickr has this one but you'd need to email the owner and ask them to change the licence to Creative Commons. It's not a brilliant picture, but better than nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Saw that yesterday. I tried but there's no email address given - you have to use Flickr's form, which means needing a Yahoo address. Gmail doesn't work. I'm not creating a new email address just for a photo. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commas[edit]

Happy to talk about commas (but not always at WP:ERRORS). Short version: "big, bad wolf" is often written with a comma because the two elements are parallel and reinforce each other; the wolf was big and bad. "old grey mare" and "shiny new car" usually don't have a comma ... even though the same thing is true for them ... because the comma usually drops out as a phrase becomes a set phrase. When the two adjectives don't reinforce each other, the comma is usually omitted. But there are readers and writers whose understanding of comma usage is exactly the opposite. Also, more and more readers get nothing from the presence or absence of commas, so it's becoming increasingly important not to rely on the commas to convey important information, for a general readership. Above all: I don't put a lot of energy into comma disputes, because most Wikipedians don't care, and they don't like it when other people start to care.

Okay that's the summary. Having said that, I'm happy to discuss commas and other orthography matters with people who like to talk about that stuff. You had a comment about a comma after "new"? - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank. Thanks for the nudge. Had meant to get back to you yesterday. I wasn't sure it was an error (hopefully that came across in my edit - it's why I started with "Personally") but I found your reply a bit odd - I didn't really understand most of it. Here's what you wrote:
:If we were talking about weird comma usage such as "pressing, developments" ... that would be one thing. But pundits take different positions, and personally, I don't see a correspondence between their advice and what successful writers have done, or still do. I'm only comfortable talking about things here that are errors, in the sense that the violate either Wikipedia usage or general usage. (This doesn't mean I'm on board with any "burn this page down!" sentiments you may have heard recently. My position is that we all have to find a way to get along.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the only bit I understood was "I'm only comfortable talking about things here that are errors, in the sense that the violate either Wikipedia usage or general usage." but even that was puzzling... as I'm sure you know, I totally agree with excluding non-errors from ERRORS. The rest of it made no sense at all to me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in order, and let me know if this doesn't help:

  • pressing, developments: There's a strong consensus that a comma doesn't belong between an adjective and a following noun that it modifies ... so that's an example of a problem we want to encourage people to bring up at WP:ERRORS.
  • pundits take different positions: People who consider themselves language experts take different positions on your question, that is, whether a comma belongs after "new".
  • I don't see a correspondence between their advice and what successful writers have done, or still do: When pundits agree with each other, with dictionaries, and with other respected references, I'm happy to take their advice on board. The question you're raising is one where there's not a lot of agreement, or even a clear discussion of the problem.
  • "burn this page down!" sentiments: There was a long argument the day before, with some people saying that the matter under discussion had already been considered at FAC and that WP:ERRORS wasn't a suitable page to discuss it (and maybe not a suitable page to discuss other things as well), and at least one person saying that FAC discussions don't override what happens at ERRORS. That discussion was unfortunate. Despite what was said, there's no broad anti-ERRORS sentiment among FAC people or anti-FAC sentiment among ERRORS people; the discussion was just some people blowing off steam. But the discussion did underline one problem I sometimes have with the ERRORS page: sometimes replying there is like those juggling acts with a flamethrower, a bowling ball and a bag of feathers ... what makes it hard is that you're dealing with different things that all have to be handled differently, but simultaneously. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To get back to what you said ... I don't think you did anything wrong bringing the comma matter to ERRORS; you were wondering if it was a mistake. I apologize that I didn't make it clear at ERRORS that it was a legitimate question, one with significant support in some authorities, but that I felt there were problems with even discussing certain comma questions at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think, in order then:
  1. Agreed, in retrospect it wasn't a clear error but I wasn't sure at the time
  2. Agreed, only proper errors should be discussed at ERRORS (although I'd support people raising an issue they're unsure about)
  3. Agreed, though I couldn't understand this sentence yesterday!
  4. Missed all of that discussion and therefore [still, really ] don't understand the relevance. I have no issues with ERRORS, I have a big issue with ITN/OTD/DYK, all of which often produce really poor material that is fixed at ERRORS or missed. Frankly, I'd burn all three of them down, despite the fact that I'm hypocritically submitting an article for DYK at the moment. I'd hope that my submission will come through with decent quality at least.
And no need to apologise - I'm not quite with it at the moment and know it.
Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning point 3, I was following the proud tradition of people who talk as if they're writing experts but can't be bothered to write clearly. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<grins> --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, and this is more relevant to the question you raised ... despite everything above, a comma is commonly inserted near the front of a long string of attributive adjectives (sometimes including nouns that are acting like adjectives) ... and these commas mean nothing more than "this is a long string of adjectives (and possibly attributive nouns)". Since that meaning conflicts with other things commas are taken to mean, there's no global consensus on this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank, you, kindly. --,Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC),[reply]

Hasdie Hasnan[edit]

FYI, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hasdie hasnan for further history of this continuing attempt at self-promotion. Thank you for your time. --Finngall talk 14:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I've posted there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Carlisle Best[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Carlisle Best at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset thanks for the notification. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

Hey, I saw you left a comment on my DYK nomination. I have addressed your concerns as well as I can. Would you perhaps take another look? Thanks! alphalfalfa(talk) 02:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the old FA list[edit]

I don't think I've said this before, so: thank you very much for this; very useful indeed, and without it I would have almost no chance of scheduling the older articles. I know others have helped contribute to that page, so if they see these, please consider this as thanks to everyone who helped. I try to pick the articles marked as acceptable; it's great to run really old FAs just to show that some people have been doing it right for a very long time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie That's very kind. I supposed that the new rules about repeating FAs might have rendered my work obsolete, so it's nice to know it's not. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. This page is essential in sifting and maintaining old FAs. often a writer with a particular field of interest has a 'run', so most whale FAs date from 2005-06, etc. So older FAs often have some differing topics to newer ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've been deleting entries that make it to Main page. Should we continue doing that? I suppose the fact that they've appeared there means that at that time at least, it was considered up to scratch. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think we should. My default/ideal is that an article only appears once unless there is a good reason for repeating, and that as many (appropriate) articles as possible appear once. Also gives rationale to tidy them up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've encouraged me, which is nice after the dispiriting experience I've just had at DYK. I'll do some more reviews some time. Talk page stalkers welcome to do the same, too. There are no rules, just thanks for helping. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, Mike Christie, a question I've asked before but can't remember the answer. Do we require any sourcing for Plot sections of movie FAs? I've just reviewed our article on ET, which I am totally astonished hasn't made it to Main page in all these years. It looks fine to me, except for the issue I mention. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall what page has the answer, but I see plot descriptions in FAs all the time with no sourcing, so no, it wouldn't be an issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. Ten years that's been waiting to appear on Main page! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plots are sourced by the movies themselves, as a primary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paulmaximus[edit]

Looks like all of his edits today have been reverted by someone.[2] And since Feb 2015 he doesn't seem to have engaged in discussion, just removed warnings. Block? And if so indefinite until he can show elsewhere he can edit with sources? Doug Weller talk 11:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my sock puppet. I'm cautious with blocks although there's a case here. I'm also given to think that indef is certainly heavyhanded and his sporadic editing makes me think a short block may either be unnoticed or discourage him from deepening his engagement, both of which are bad. How about a personalised level 4 warning, or a non templated longer message? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he edits so sporadically that a short block might not be noticed. I'll post something. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good stuff. I'll be watching, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get an email from him? I'm much happier now. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but delighted. Seems like it was a promising message? Hoping this turns out really well. I know I'm a big softy and in often let down by people when I stretch AGF for them, but it feels so good when it comes off. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax & Attack pages[edit]

This individual, User:December of 2007 who I have now blocked and deleted some of their edit summaries, has been on a rampage vandalising BLPs and falsely proclaiming he death of the subject. He has also uploaded this image to Commons thumb|300px|Keshawn Thompson on October 3, 2017, an anonymous photo which he claims to have made, which he has been putting on those pages. I do not have a clue of even how to tag an image on Commons for deletion, but I think this should be deleted along with any others he's uploaded and he should also be blocked there. Can you help, or do you know an admin on Commons? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung. See [3] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Carlisle Best[edit]

On 25 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carlisle Best, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that international cricketer Carlisle Best would "aggravate bowlers" by commentating on himself while batting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carlisle Best. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carlisle Best), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{cn}} on Tisha B'Av[edit]

Hi. I don't disagree, but would probably have waited until tomorrow to tag. People get fussy about pages linked from the main page that have citation tags. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've hidden the entries. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A/R/CA on TRM[edit]

Hi Dweller, I'd like to ask what you think of the text I suggested as an alternative? Feel free to be honest if you think it's poor / a bad idea, and I promise I won't wave WP:CIVIL at you.  :) EdChem (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think mentions of "belittling and insulting" is just too prone to misinterpretation by the erroneous and the mischievous. And, from what Opabinia regalis writes, not actually the 'problem' that ArbCom have with TRM. OR says it's when he goes into "Speculations on the motivations of editors or reflections on general competence of editors or administrators". So why not make the remedy about that, if that's what the remedy is supposed to be about? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... do you realise that OR is quoting my suggestion there? EdChem (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm suggesting honing it right down to avoid silliness, deliberate or otherwise. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DynamoDegsy[edit]

Hi, I saw your comment at User_talk:DynamoDegsy. I'm happy to see the block reduced to time-served as soon as they calm down and promise not to edit war. Something was needed but I was surprised to see a week imposed for a first block, and then even more surprised when the extender mooted a possible indef.

My quick flip through a bunch of rugby league historic bios suggest there are a massive number of problems but many of them are fairly easily fixed. A lot of the issues relate to inexperience (even with contributors who have been here for ages because they seem to be so subject-specific that they're oblivious to the bigger picture). As I said at Talk:Tom Askin, people with access to the British Newspaper Archive could have a field-day expanding these bios. Alas, the Wikipedia Library collaboration with BNA is no more but I am happy to shell out for a short-term subscription to help improve these things provided people aren't going to kick back at me. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to help Dynamo Degsy back to editing before any solutions to any problems are considered. Nothing I've seen could be considered 'urgent' and I greatly value Wikipedians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DynamoDegsy[edit]

I hope you can make useful contact with him and that he will return after the block expires. However he has an idiosyncratic style of writing and opinions about MOS and any challenges to his version tend to lead to the same PA and dismissal because we haven't created as many articles as him or he just plain disagrees; examples User talk:Nthep/Archive 21#Frederick Talbot and User talk:Mattlore#Overlinking. The argument that has led to the block is another example of the same, unfortunately this time "my way or the highway" became the highway for a period. We all know WP isn't perfect but we work within the constraints to do the best we can and Degsy needs to accept this too, if you can convince him of that, that will be a brilliant outcome - without him we wouldn't have over 2,000 biographies but it has to be on the understanding that if others say parts need to be scaled back then so be it. Nthep (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Heslop[edit]

Thanks. Wisden 1901 is not in two parts as such. But there are two separate paginations. One, in lower case roman numerals, is a front section of 120 pages that includes the laws, the births and deaths lists, the obits, public school notes, a couple of feature articles, the cricketers of the year and the editor's notes. And then there's a back section of 470+ pages paginated with Arabic numerals that covers all the matches of the 1900 season, universities, minor counties, school averages, overseas cricket and fixtures for 1901. Later editions (after the First World War and through to the 1930s) call these two sections Part I and Part II and at that stage separate series of Arabic numerals were used for both sections, so the Part I and Part II are definitely necessary in citations for those editions. Not sure whether it's really needed for the 1901 edition; maybe I'll amend. Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mine go back to 1895, though I don't have war-time ones when there wasn't much cricket. That said, I have 1915 and 1940, of course, because they cover proper seasons the years before, and I have 1919 and 1946 just because... Some of them aren't in great condition because I do actually read them! Johnlp (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1946 is fascinating. The photos and adverts especially. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only photos in 1901 are in a montage entitled "Mr R.E.Foster and Four Yorkshire Cricketers" which has been pasted on a card insert that faces the start of the cricketers of the year section (on page lxix). I agree about the adverts: the second section of the 1901 Wisden finishes on page 477, but then there's about 40 pages of ads for bats, newspapers, cigarettes etc etc, many with very nice woodcut illustrations. Johnlp (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mal Meninga's thighs[edit]

Hi Dweller, thanks for your mediation efforts, my email is now enabled. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.177.53 (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TFAP[edit]

Hey, fantastic work at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page‎‎. Jim is working on the September schedule as we speak, so the best place for this would be WP:TFAP. TFAP would be good for the cricketer in December, too. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I loved this. Difficult times IRL and positive messages here are greatly appreciated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry to hear that, feel free to talk about it here or by email. And, running through the list just now, I want to say something stronger than "good job" ... I think we need to action everything through 2007 in some appropriate way. I've got some ideas that I'll run past Jim and Mike, when Jim is finished with his current workload. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, American Airlines Flight 77 ran in 2015. Were you suggesting it as a rerun? The previous TFA for reruns has to be 5 years ago or more. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dank See my message on the talk page. The page hasn't been kept up to date with Main page scheduling, so includes things that have already run. The value of the page is for things that haven't run, I think, so we do need to crack this nut. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch![edit]

Messenger par excellance
We don't kill the messenger, even if we are not happy with the message. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was excited when I saw you adding a source. Shame. Thanks for the effort. You're one of our best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish. Close but no cigar. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help . . .[edit]

. . . and for the edit summaries. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fitbaw again...[edit]

I just passed Cardiff City F.C. at GAN...you reckon it is within striking distance of FA-hood? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I've replied at the talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Belvedere Cricket Club[edit]

Hi there. I see that you have done several edits for the OBCC Wiki entry. Well done!! I was involved in an early attempt to get the entry established but gave up for various reasons. I have since then set up a separate web site detailing the history of OBCC. I am writing to ask if you could/would add a link to the web site into the Wiki entry (if that is appropriate). The site is http://www.oldbelvederecc.com Thank you Popgdm (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popgdm Sorry for slow reply. Please see my user talk. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested?[edit]

Please see this campaign launch. All the best. Jack | talk page 11:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlackJack Sorry for slow reply. Please see my user talk. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craig Kieswetter/archive2[edit]

A couple of years ago, you reviewed Craig Kieswetter at the first FAC, which unfortunately stalled somewhat. I have worked on the points you made then, and added some more detail about his time since cricket retirement (playing golf, obviously), and wondered if you would be so kind as to take another look for me at the new FA review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craig Kieswetter/archive2? Harrias talk 14:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias Sorry for slow reply. Please see my user talk. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller I had seen, no problem. Take care of yourself. Harrias talk 16:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arb expectations[edit]

Hi Dweller. I don't want to comment again at the ARCA request for TRM because I don't think it will necessarily be helpful, but what are the reasonable expectations here for activity? The request you opened has languished now without any substantial activity for a while. I personally think they should delete the sanction and move on, but now it doesn't even look like anything will pass. I guess I just wonder why they would accept the request and then not act on it. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, what's going to pass now is the new, even more stringent wording, which would prevent me from criticising errant admins or Arbs. Censorship at its finest, despite at least one of the Arbs pretending that she didn't think Arbcom should have made the restriction harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond to this, Mr Ernie. I'm not around much at the moment (see other comments on this page) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chihuahua Poodle(dog) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chihuahua Poodle(dog). Since you had some involvement with the Chihuahua Poodle(dog) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re message in archive[edit]

Hello, Dweller. No need to apologise. I fully understand as I know you are having problems in real life. All the best and I hope everything works out well for you in the end. Jack | talk page 16:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Indef'ed IP[edit]

Hi Dweller, I noticed:

  1. 173.19.7.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Dweller for Unlblocked SoxBot VI or impersonator

It looks like unixpod no longer exists. Could you check to see if this block length is still appropriate? Thanks! SQLQuery me! 03:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey stop delete the characters of twd season 7[edit]

You need to read WP:BLP. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dweller. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance[edit]

Hello Dweller. I have attempted to create a request for Guadalcanal Campaign to appear as the featured article on the 75th anniversary of the end of the battle,[4] but was unsuccessful. Can you help? I have gone over the article and will do so again; like all of Cla68's work it holds up well, despite its age. Thanks, Kablammo (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller is mainly retired, is there anything I could help you with? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TRM. Yes, I'm not really involved at the moment, other than passing edits/admin actions on things I happen to notice when I visit for reference etc. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both.
The Rambling Man, Dweller had listed Guadalcanal Campaign as a possible TFA for February 9, the 75th anniversary of the battle's end. User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2008. While it appears at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending it does not appear at WP:TFAR. I attempted — unsuccessfully — to list it on the latter page. (I'm not sure if a listing there is even needed.) Kablammo (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dweller/Archive2017&oldid=1139182356"