User talk:Dweller

Brown the invincible

I finished the CE (apart from teh lead) so I think you can do your wikilink run now! Thanks! Looks like GBR won :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I've barely begun with Miller! Hope you're well. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I think it just needs a look over for oddities, rather than copyediting, which would have been the main roadblock. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you're breathing easier with the RFB? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's up there. Hopefully your new job has reinvigorated your passion for articles eh? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 09:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's for all people who played in FC matches in Australia in the given year, that includes Tests, touring Test players, tour matches between England and the various states, Shield, etc, etc. I think you can take a break from the general ce. Everyone seems satisfied already....YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFB

Best wishes for your RFB -- Tinu Cherian - 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping feedback for The World Ends with You

Can I ask you to recheck the comprehension of the above FAC (which you previously left comments on) which two other editors have since reviewed and copyedited further which has led to further simplification of the plot and gameplay sections (the two giving the most problems). --MASEM 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you still an oppose? Can you update the FAC on progress pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. On my way! --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Hey, would you believe it, I'm busy working again. Tsk. Things going okay your end? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. Things at the RFB seem to have settled down to a dull buzz. Check out who started the article currently top of the In the news section of the mainpage... Not just good looking, but famous too. Awesome... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, then there's a slim chance we'll both have different content on the mainpage together. A first...? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, your RfB was successful

Well it seems I return from my break to find not one (Rlevse) but two extra pair of hands to help with bureaucrat task. How pleasing, maybe I will finally be able to do some editing again! Anyway, congratulations on becoming a bureaucrat (I just fixed the switch). Both I and other bureaucrats are available should you have any questions. Best wishes, WJBscribe (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the close and the warm welcome. I find it amusing that I fell short of WP:100 - good for keeping the ego in check.

Yes, I will have questions and plan on walking before running. I'd like to be up to speed before TRM goes on his lengthy wikibreak, so that I can pull my weight.

Sadly, RL has exploded all over me today and my editing time will be restricted for perhaps 24 hours. I'll keep away from anything I might make disastrous errors over until I can give it my full attention, so I might not pop up at CHU (my first intended area of helping) till then. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm not the newbie crat anymore either! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh! If anything goes wrong, you can always blame me now. Thanks for all your gnoming at the RfB. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I did oppose you I would like to offer you my congratulations on passing and I hope you will prove me wrong :) --Chris 11:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I plan on it :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFB ! Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tinu. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your RfB Dweller, good luck and use the new tools well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You'll make a great 'crat! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 12:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally! Congrats on the 'crat tools!Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Use the tools well... or ! ;) --Lord₪Sunday 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I think! --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done sir. Hooray for the anti-bureaucratic class. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hooray indeed. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. - jc37 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. Have fun with the tools... they're a great article writing distraction, apparently. —Giggy 08:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope not - I've just committed to getting Cricket back to its former glory. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from this fellow cabal member. Now I can retire gracefully... :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You? Retire? I think not! --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Dweller, and thanks for not spamming our talk pages. You might put the same thank you message prominently on your RFBs talkpage - it's still on everyone's watchlists!--chaser - t 15:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Good idea. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Belated congrats. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to send a quick email to human resources for your pay upgrade. No more measly admin paychecks for you! You get to multiply your current paycheck by 3, now that you have three more headaches to deal with.  :-)Keeper ǀ 76 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm raking it in, now. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Would make a brilliant crat.

Sorry about that, I just had to do it because I was in a database lockdown when I was going to support your RFB, and then the computer overheated. SpecialK 15:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Adminship

Heh, no they haven't. I've nominated myself twice, once a while ago (here) and once a bit more recently (here). I'm not entirely sure whether it would be best for me to wait a little longer and help reduce the concerns people raised in my second application. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I will do, thanks. I've applied for WP:ADCO with Malinaccier so I think I'll wait to start and complete that before applying again. Speak soon, happy editing. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sicked up my fish'n'chips...

Yeah, yeah, who's the big kahuna now?! Of course you're welcome. I knew you'd get the support of the community and (although you probably aren't interested) it certainly exposed some interesting perspectives from other editors en route. And I see you're (almost) straight into it... good on ya. As WJB said, don't hesitate to call on any active 'crat anytime. And if you can't find one of them, give me a shout....! Much wiki-love... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't know about that list but how interesting. I wish I'd known about it sooner when people were berating me for being a lazy 'crat - 2nd most active promoter, 6th most active renamer, 10th most active 'bot flagger. And I only started in March. Anyway, the race is on dude. My stats will be close to zero from late October so you'll need to be da man... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

O rly? Which one did I bollux up? Either way, it's nice to know that I'm not as dormant as advertised by others... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya, spot on. I saw it too after I re-read your note. Well, it didn't affect my "placing" - I'm ACTIVE!! Woohoo. So are you. Aweseome. What a good day. Hope you've enjoyed it...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, and you'll soon find out that being a 'crat is just nothing more than grinding away at backlogs. It's probably less challenging than being an admin. But that's by the by. Enjoy it all. My other half (sitting some two inches to my left) also wishes to express her congrats to you. So "congrats" from The Rambling Girl. Huzzah! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well fair enough. I hope you reassured your better half that I was a decent kind of guy (besides the ITFC affliction) and had nothing but your (collective) best interest at heart... I'm hoping things are on the way up for you all... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Renaming Help

Howdy Dweller, I'm the MRImaven trying to change over to CinderSue. I'm not sure what the ramifications are for not changing my "global", so I'm not sure if it is okay or not. If it won't affect me signing in, or editing pages, I don't see why it would be an issue. Thanks for your help, CyndiMRImaven (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do it! ...and thanks for the help - not to mention putting up with this humble newbie! 146.186.179.99 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting fact, and congratulations

Congratulations on your successful RfB! You may be interested to know that as well as being the fourth new bureaucrat this year, you are the fourth person in a row to have been nominated for bureaucratship and passed; and overall, I think you are the fifth person to have had a nominator at RfB. Good luck, and best wishes. Acalamari 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Best of all, I suppose, is that we're promoting people. I can remember a time it seemed like no-one could pass RfB. Thanks for the congrats and the stats. --Dweller (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hooray! RFB is now possible for ubertalented users! That's a first! bibliomaniac15 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Spreading the Insanity

Trust all is well. I would like to share this: Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 If you have the opportunity for some lite-hearted ... well maybe sadistic entertainment ... drop by. I've released my little pitbulls on Wikiland. It's ambitious (some are still trying to find the project page); but they seem enthusiastic. I've convinced them there is nothing but love in Wikiland - so feel free to hug one now and then if you can spare a moment. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

*blink*

You're a 'crat???!! How did I miss your RfB? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you missed it. You would probably have been part of the Strong Oppose Cabal, who seem to have been on holiday during my RfB and missed sinking it. On the off-chance you might have supported, well, I think the world could not have coped with my ego if I'd got onto WP:100 again. (I suppose you might have gone Neutral) --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well of course I would be part of the Strong-Oppose Cabal. I mean, just because they missed my RfA doesn't mean you can have the same luxury. Seriously, though, congratulations! I wish I could have added my support. I suppose I could anyways, but that would be weird. :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You could claim you were a silent neutral. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your user page redesign request

 Done. Give me a call if you need anything redone on your user page, or for anything at all you need my assistance with. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FLRC

Now that it looks like Matthewedwards is going to become a FL director, that would leave a spot at FLRC open. Do you think that you need a co-delegate or would you be fine by yourself. I would prefer to have two, but it's up to you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail, and another. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad day

Hope it wasn't too bad a day. I watched my lot yesterday, played a lot better than against Wolves but can't close out. Oh well. At least we're still ahead of your lot. As for 'crat e/c - don't worry. As soon as these backlogs are cleared out, no-one can really complain. I'm doing usual work stuff for the next week so ping me if you fancy it, let me know how tings are. Keep up the good crat stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed that. Especially pertitnent these days with so many accounts being migrated to the unified login and each time us having to ask if it's okay to rename anyway. Oh well! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The "software"

Hey, on the "PraveenNet2 → PraveenNet" rename request which you rejected, it's highly unlikely that the user will be able to register that account name as it's so similar to the current user name and the "software" prevents normal users from registering very similar names. I know you won't mind re-assessing that particular  Not done...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I'll review. --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd. But not as odd as Berbatov for Man City? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tlx template question

Hello there. I recently replied to your post at Template talk:Tlx, but, having then seen that you posted that question in February (and so there's a chance you might no longer be watching the page!), I thought I'd let you know here too. Ciao! It Is Me Here (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

SUL

See Wikipedia:CHU/SUL#None_.28SUL_request.29_.E2.86.92_Mgray, I think he needs more specific help. He filed a repeat request right under it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that last night. I'm on it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dweller

HI, nice to meet you, could you send the word out to all users you KNOW that 80,000 men fought thermoplyae, go to reference #3 and #15 or 16 and in the article itself it says first day xerxes sent 20,000 Medians, second day, 10,000 Persian Immortals, third day 50,000 others, fourth day 30,000Survivors+10,000Immortals=40,000 others, but together who fought and was not recycled like the spartans, it equals 80,000 men who fought in Thermoplyae. But other historians failed to see this, and made up numbers. I have said this paragraph in its long version, many times, YOU may see the complete version on the discussion page of the Thermoplyae battle, AND look at other sections too, and I'm tired of explaining it after edits, to users, to administraters, but the problem is that new users who don't know this data, and change it back to 800,000! So I hope you can understand, comment me if you have any questions, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The infobox currently reads: "80,000 (Ctesias)". Ctesias does not say that there was an army of 80,000 at Thermopylae. Read the original source again. He says there was a total of 800,000 men (including sailors of course). Your figure of 80,000 is presumably gathered by adding up the numbers of men Ctesias says Xerxes threw against the Spartans, 50K+20K+10K. That's OR and is not permitted on Wikipedia. How do you know that Xerxes threw every man he had against the Spartans? You omit, for example, the 40K that went round the mountain path, but you also omit the unknowable (from that source) how many men were held in reserve.

I'm not sure why you'd want the infobox to hold such a low figure - so much lower than even the modern estimates. It strikes me as POV. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Baseball uniform

As far as I can tell, Okkonen's book is the bible of 20th century MLB uniform information, and a lot of other sources get their information from it, include Baseball Almanac, which even quotes Okkonen on their page on the topic. The book also has the MLB stamp of approval. It would be nice if he would publish a sequel and also get into the 19th century, although the info would likely be a lot spottier, due to the absence of a comprehensive photo record. I have a number of concerns about that article, not the least of which is that despite efforts by others, it still reads like it was written by someone whose first language is not English. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

80,000 vs 800,000

PLEASE, CAREFULLY READ EVERY SENTENCE TO THE END: (I'm not yelling, I'm sorry if you think so)

(There is a difference to how many invaded and how many fought in a single battle.)

For those who have wondered if anyone else talked about this battle, it was Ctesias of Cnidus, and he exactly said what the number of Persians there were, which was 80,000, which 20,000 may have died, according to Herodotus, and the Greeks if you read all of the historians accounts, there were ACTUALLY 16,000 Greeks, with 300+400+700+900+1,000+Unknown=3,300 Greek casualties, or possibly 4,000. Anyways, TO GET TO THE REAL ISSUE, first of all, concerning the reliability of Ctesias he says there was 800,000+ Persians or people of Persian empire army that invaded Greece falling between todays modern estimates of 750,000-1,000,000 total total troops of which less that half actually fought in battles, and this would be right, if we accept Herodotus and others misplace the zero digits. But I only added Ctesias' 80,000, mostly because if you add the number of people who fought in Thermoplyae is, day one, 20,000, day two, 10,000, day three, 50,000, and then the [RECYCLED] 40,000 to soround the Greeks in the end. It equals 120,000, but I omit the extra 40,000, because Ctesias himself says that they were the same troops who fought in the previous days. For example, you would not add an extra 300 Spartans every day of each battle, you would keep it at 300, because they were [RECYCLED] for the next days battle, most likely they were survivors of the three days previous battles. He says 10,000 Immortals, (WE KNOW that at least 1,000 Immortals may have died in the begining) and 30,000 survivors was what the 40,000 composed of. Also, from what we know, Ctesias is a historian that lived at the time of Herodotus and had personal access to the Persian archives, and may have written more books than him, which some fragments remain and most are lost. So to leave his account out, is simply biased, and if were only going to rely on making UP numbers for the battle today, then should we just ignore all other battle numbers from all ancient historians? My main point is, if Ctesias says 80,000 were sent against the Greeks of Thermoplyae, than why do we replace that with 800,000, comman sense says TODAYS historians are more willing to accept a figure of 80,000, than a figure of 800,000, regardless the original research. So please explain to me how this would be original research, if all I am doing is putting down what Ctesias is telling us? And that Herodotus says 2,000,000+ army invaded Greece, but for example in Plataea he says 300,000 fought, SO then their is a difference between how many invaded as part of the reserves, and how many fought. Personally I don't endorse the idea that some users are taking the law to there own hands by exaggerating what others do. And I'm open to putting the estimates at 80,000-800,000 for the main battle, but I suggest we don't jump into conclusions that are not satisfactory. I WONDER why if we are going put 800,000 of Ctesias for Thermoplyae, than WHY NOT ALSO put Herodotus' 2,000,000!? YOU are choosing the numbers, not ME! Thank you for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I enjoy reading page-long paragraphs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondly

Even if I' WRONG on the theory of zero diget displacement which I first heard about on WIKIPEDIA, I AM NOT THE ORIGINATOR of the theory! So again, even if I'm wrong, the numbers again for the battle add up to 80,000, I'm sorry that is at least something I can't deny, when it says it, it says it. Secondly, for the Battle of Artemisium or I think another that currently escapes me, Herodotus says, for example, this many ships fought the first day, and this many ships fought the second day, should we NOT then add them up together for the total number of naval ships that fought that battle? The users who edit that article and many others DO, so how is that original research? I think users give more protection to certian articles, and leave others out, so if I use original research, then many others must be wrong too?--Ariobarza (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Luis Graham-Yooll

I have absolutely no problems with it staying, and won't try for AfD. I just didn't see any notability in it when I looked. Thanks for catching my error. Templarion1 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting recovery of deleted page

Dear Dweller:

First of all, allow me to congratulate you on becoming a bureaucrat here.

The main reason I am writing to you is that I noticed that a few months ago you speedily deleted the page on Snell & Wilmer. I am an experienced editor concentrating primarily on legal topics for WikiProject Law. One of the tasks that I and several other editors at WP:LAW have been working on is expanding Wikipedia's coverage of prominent law firms in the USA and elsewhere. Snell & Wilmer is one of the firms I had been planning on writing about, as it is one of the largest and best-known firms in the Mountain West region of the USA. I was wondering if you would do me the kindness of restoring the deleted content into my user space so that I can work on it. If this is not possible, or if the deleted content was so insubstantial as to be useless, please let me know and I will understand. I could always begin the article from scratch, but I think it would be easier to write if I had an earlier version to work on and improve. Either way though, please write me back on my talk page to let me know what you plan to do.

I thank you in advance for your assistance. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll get back to you in a few days. --Eastlaw (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, this is what the page looks like now. I have brought it up to the standard of the better articles in Category:Law firms of the United States (or at least, reworked it into the same style I use for most other law firm articles). Let me know if you think it is ready to be moved back to mainspace. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Eh?

Whoops. I think there may be a template error- I hit the edit button on the 'please don't be silly' heading on a user's talk page, and I obviously edited the template instead of the user's talk page. Are you any good with templates? Could you possibly look into what may have caused that? I wouldn't know what to look for. If it helps, the talk page was User talk:Bubblemurphy. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would probably explain it. There was a lot of space, I remember deleting some stuff I didn't understand... Stupid templates. I hope I'm not, though it is certainly a possibility. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's odd how many times I've been asked that. (Sorry, 'magpie' to me is a bird... wasn't quite sure what you were getting that.) No, it's my real name. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Snell and Wilmer

In that case, what you did wouldn't work; you have to edit a redirect again to keep people from moving articles back to it. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're moving article A to article B, and article B exists, and consists only of #REDIRECT [[A]], and has no other edits (i.e. its only edit was to move from B to A, or to be created in the first place), then that works without being an admin. You have to edit the redirect again in order to force an admin's involvement. But generally, I don't think we keep mainspace redirects to userspace, especially not in this situation; better simply to deal with the user if he moves it back, rather than clogging up the mainspace with a redirect. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

About User:Lajolla2009 and that RfA comment

Hi there, I guess you remember that you posted at my talk page about me commenting on a oppose by Lajolla2009 (talk · contribs). Your note at his/her talk page (which has been removed now) mentioned more incidents you saw concerning this user. There is a AN/I thread about this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lajolla2009 now, maybe you could add your input there if you have had experiences with this user before. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Better Backs

I have nominated Better Backs, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Backs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ninety:one 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell

I requested my name to be changed to ShyGuyGunzel. It says you changed my name, but nothing has happened. Benshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

Hi Dweller, I know you have looked at this article in the past, but I was wondering whether, if you had the time, you could take a quick look regarding FAC sometime in the future. Cheers! SGGH ^speak! 12:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Query on Neutrality(?) policy

As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN. however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republick of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used.... If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue. As unimportand as it might seam to you: 1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy 2) it is malinforming and incorrect 3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute 4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN thank you very much for your attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP seems to have spammed all the crats on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

SUL for Polish Wikipedia

The username "Dweller" has been moved to a new location, it's now possible to unify your account. Wpedzich (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, I sent you [another] e-mail. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hip Hip Hooray

I've replied on Dmcdevit's talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford FAC

Hey man, the Old Trafford FAC is progressing at quite a pace. However, yours is currently the only outstanding "Oppose" !vote. Any chance you could take another look at the article? Cheers. – PeeJay 18:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I know you're very busy nowadays with all your bureaucratic responsibilities, as well as the many articles I'm sure you have on your watchlist, so I wonder, if you don't have time to properly review the article, would you mind withdrawing your opposition to its promotion? Seems like User:SandyGeorgia is about ready to promote it and I don't want to have to take it to another FAC just because it got to the end of the two weeks and you hadn't reviewed your opposition. Anyway, hope you're well :) – PeeJay 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello, I see you refused to change my username to Copros (Wikipedia:Changing_username#BVertut_.E2.86.92_Copros) because it is already in use on the French Wikipedia, but this account is mine (it was renamed a few hours ago). Thanks. --BVertut (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have confirmed at WP:CHU. --BVertut (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the note to my talk. Sorry for the delay in replying... :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A genuine LOL

This cracked me up. ANI is rarely a place that makes me laugh out loud, so thanks for the levity!
— Satori Son 15:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Contra Mediation

You told me to contact you if I was gonna be gone from the mediation page for while. I'm going on a vacation cruise with my family starting september 12 and it will end september 20. I will take my computer with me, but I probably won't be able get online that much. I would encourage to try and convince groggy to reconsider my compromise offer while I'm gone. I really am not willing to compromise on this and I feel I made a lot of effort to come up with a fair solution.annoynmous 03:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude

Hey, missed your msg earlier, I was "working" as usual, sorry. Anyhow, all okay with me. I was wondering, is there something we can get our teeth into, collaborative-wise? I've got a couple of FLCs running but I thought we could look a FAC? Your call... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perma-Link to my response to your response on my talk

Hey, please forgive me for bothering you but as I still hope that you find time to review my contribs, I wanted to leave you a permalink to my last response to your offer on my talk page, because the bot will archive the section soon. Just so you can take all the time you need (although I hope not too much^^). Thanks again and have a nice day :-) SoWhy 13:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Elbow criterion"

Instead of discussing the matter User:David Eppstein simple deleted the tag on the basis of 33 Google hits for "Elbow criterion", which I found as well such as [1] which appear to be a student's attempt to "rediscover" an established idea, claim it to be something it is not, write a paper about it, get a grade and end up causing confusion and loss of time to address it. Please restore the tag and discipline David. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.14.204 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to you when your IP address keeps changing. Please register an account - it's free of charge and takes about 2 minutes. It'll be easier to reply. --Dweller (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hi, I saw your name at WP:ADCO. I know the chart says you're inactive, but would you be willing to take on an admin coachee?--LAAFan^sign _review 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Sent a submission to two other users, and one responded already. So, disregard the above comment--LAAFan^sign _review 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Agreed. To make this clear, I do not trust either Herodotus and Ctesias, as they both make horrible mistakes in their histories, and it is fact Herodotus makes more mistakes, because his book is longer than Ctesias. Anyways, on the other hand, WE can not really question their numbers because WE were not there, AND just because a guy with or without a PhD says that is unreliable, WE can not ASSUME he is correct. Which my advice to Doug is personally not look at one source against Ctesias, but to look at many historians that are for his numbers, which there are, as I will glady provide them for you if you ask me, and again for good reason I am for his small numbers, but I also question him. So my main point is that if we are going to question small numbers that Ctesias provides for us, as even the source you proved here, which CONSIDERS Ctesias more reliable, and that if you ask any historian they will tell you that super powers would not use ALL their invasion force for the first battle of a certain invasion, but chose a well selected few at first to get a good job done, for the waves of troops at first that Xerxes sends against the Spartans are few, and increase over time, as he gets desperate. And, as even Herodotus implies, Xerxes wanted to pass the Thermopylae pass ASAP, and not even to fight there, that is why, when he is forced, he sends waves of armies of 10-50,000. Anyways, I am just saying if we are going question small numbers, than for other major battles of the ancient world we should just PUT Unknown, EVEN if the numbers are provided for us?

We can never trust him over the size of armies, although occasionally he reduces Herodotus' vast hordes to more plausible dimensions.26 Obviously we cannot believe the statistics of the present passage. THIS why I said historians generally accept smaller numbers, and if one asks them, they well confirm this notion.

Herodotus' half-legendary account of Thermopylae has degenerated into total legend. THIS is the reason why this battle article has become SACRED to people, which is mostly based on legendary motifs provided by Herodotus and Frank Miller as they try exemplify the Spartans to a higher degree than the other Greeks.

Herodotus' narrative (7.215 and 7.83) suggests that he believed that all 10,000 Immortals accompanied Hydarnes along the Anopaia path and topographical discussions often accept this number.27 It may be an exaggeration. At any rate Ctesias' figure of 40,000 is ludicrous. THIS exerpt from above further confirms a figure of AROUND 80,000, and not 120,000 as Dweller once told me to put, which his question was that why I had omitted the 40,000 (which were ANYWAYS 10,000 Persian Immortals+30,000 other infantry RECYCLED from the previous days fighting). But, for example if there were 9,000 Persian Immortals left+31,000 other infantry RECYCLED from the previous days fighting, a figure of 40,000 could still work, but again, this just is a theory, which leaves it to be equally obscure.

I am worried and glad this is happening here, as it shows, 'certain' users that are OVER protective of 'certain' battle articles are realizing and or I am realizing how hard it is to CONFIRM history! So now take a deep breath, and slowly review this paragraph I wrote, and if you want, give me a WORTHY response, thank you all. Here is the link that caused all the problems here, [2] READ TO THE END.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

modesty

FWIW, you're also not bad at being patronisingly useful. Everyme 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image notice

I do a lot of the cleanup work making sure logos are tagged instead of being deleted. I noticed in the most recent batch the bot spit at me a large large number of english sounding sports logos at User:AWeenieMan/furme/DFUI/Logos, I think you and TRM are into that sorta thing, you might wanna take a swing through that list to see if any should be saved. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Help Me,Sir

Hello sir, i've seen your good works on Don Bradman, i am a little confused about a story can you help me? When Don scored 334, he surpassed tip foster's ashes record of 287. can you tell me who was the bowler when don took a single to take over that record?? Please ! Bharath (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Have you closed a successful RFA or any RFA yet? Aitias 3 is looking good if you're around for that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It closes 22:38, 17 September 2008, two more days and you might even be awake ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for my rename. TheMolecularMan (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse

[3] :o Enigma ^message 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)