User talk:WereSpielChequers

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

• Welcome to my talk page. If you just want to make a short comment why not put it in my guestbook. If you want to add something to one of the existing topics go ahead, Or click here to start a new topic. As well as archiving, I move barnstars to bling, and friendly one liners to my guestbook.

• If you are here because I named your school or employer on the talk page of your IP address, it means that I thought that some of the edits from your IP address were vandalism. If you don't think what you did was vandalism, then just ask and I'll look again at your edits. If you want me to take that message down and are willing to stop vandalising and make positive edits, then leave me a message here, read this and start making positive edits.

Help

Thanks for your prompt reply. I'm having big problems editing certain articles in that attempted edits take so long that I'm timed out (Error Message 500 appears). This is frustrating as it's happening with articles to which I've made major contributions and/or created, in particular the following: Paisley, James Black (bishop) and Philip Tartaglia. Any help would be much appreciated. (Ulysses54 (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Is this just a problem you have with Wikipedia articles or generally with other Internet things? I find I have to reboot my PC occasionally simply to clear out the memory of various Wikipedia pages that I've been editing - so rebooting your PC might fix this. Paisley is a fairly large article at 31k so if you are on a slow line you will find it takes time to open and save Philip Tartaglia should be quicker. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be just on Wikipedia that there's a problem - and only with certain articles or sections of articles eg Paisley. I tried rebooting but to no avail. I'm still unable to edit on those articles I mentioned above. (Ulysses54 (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

I've just made a small edit to James Black (bishop) with no problem. So I'm not sure what is going on, what was the change you were trying to make, did it involve large photos? ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your browser cache? Editing with a different browser? Resetting your router? If not, I'd suggest trying it :P. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art V&A

You should get in touch with User:AndrewRT about WLA; he was put up as a local contact person for this project at the recent IRC meeting of Wikimedia UK. Thanks for your help!--Pharos (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've expressed an interest in getting involved and as a Board member of wikimedia v2 I think Pharos wanted me to play some kind of coordinating role but I'm not sure. At this stage I can't tell you any more, but I'll try to take this further this weekend and will get back to you! AndrewRT(Talk) 22:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew, it would be very helpful if you could fill this role as the contact person. This is not to diminish the role of others at all, but it is extremely helpful from this end to have a clear line of communication between our groups, when we may have half a dozen museum-wikimedian copperatives as part of this project. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just to let you know, we've worked out some more details about this and I've put up a summary page at WP:WLA@V&A. V&A are hosting a launch event on 1st February and we're hoping to get as many people there as possible. Please:

• Sign up at the participant list
• Spread the word to anyone you know who may be interested
• Come along to an IRC discussion next Tuesday 6th Jan at irc:wikimedia-uk
• Let me know if you can think of anything else that needs doing on the talk page.

Cheers! AndrewRT(Talk) 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick CSD Survey

Hey Were, A few days ago you made some off the cuff comment about how you didn't know what others thought about your CSD work. I took that as an invitation to take a look... and it looks great. There were some concerns back in September---particularly with your edit summaries---but nothing major. The problem I noticed was that you were using something to the effect of "Not globaly notable yet" or something like that. Well, that is not part of the criteria for keeping, a lot of articles are on people who are not globally notable. The question is are they notable. I also don't like your edit summaries for CSD tagging, I'm never quite sure of what it is talking about---especially the older stuff. I like the more standardized edit summaries that tell me what specific category you are looking at. I have to say, that you seem to have found a niche in USER:NAMES/Attack Pages. Attack pages are one of the "safe" csd categories. I personally rarely see anything wrong with them when articles are deleted as attack pages. There was one article that I was going to nail you for, an article in a foreign language, but you didn't tag it for speedy---and amazing the person who deleted it didn't do so for being in Hindi, they apparently spoke hindi and deleted it as blatant advertising in hindi!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman, yup that off the cuff comment was indeed an invitation, and thanks for taking it up. I don't remember the Hindi article, and can only speak two words of Hindi so not sure what I picked up on there. I'll have a look for the page on approved edit summaries on CSD tagging, but while I write edit summaries of attack pages primarily with the admin in mind, when I'm dealing with bios of teenagers and the newly redundant I tend to think of the author whose reading why I've nommed their CV for deletion. Hence my use of "Not yet globally notable" to spare their feelings. Searching User space for "badwords" certainly turned up a lot of old attack pages, perhaps naively I was expecting just to be reverting vandalism on long dormant user pages, and a little surprised at how many times it was the user who was the author. I don't agree that all attacks are clear, and if you don't mind I may bounce some borderline ones by you to see if I've got my tolerance setting right. But once again thanks for the survey. ϢereSpielChequers 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: RfA

Woah, I opposed your last one? Well that's just the bat shit because in recent times I thought you were an admin already. My only advice is don't kill your last one by making it a joke, be serious. There's nothing wrong with throwing in a joke or two but don't let other people get the impression that you're making a joke of the whole system. I'm supporting anyway, watchlisted. I'll even co-nom you if you want. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclo, yes I've taken the point about humour - no Lolcats next time. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to take a closer look at you, but I would be willing to consider a co-nom... my review of your CSD work was a definite positive and my overall impression is positive (But I'd have to do a thorough review first.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I do like the idea of having the poppable one and one of my opposers as co-noms, so Balloonman yes please review me, but no need to hurry; One concern I have is over timing, I have been told that three months is on the edge of acceptability as a gap between RFAs, and I don't want to run until I can see a week where I can be online every day. Also though this process of contacting my opposers has started very well I'm not assuming that everyone will be so quick to reply or so positive. ϢereSpielChequers 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I answered via e-mail. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and replied ϢereSpielChequers 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

some words for your bot

Hi, I've been patrolling certain words for some time that could do with being botted. Would your bot be interested in taking them on?

• Webiste - website
• Janaury - January
• Febraury - February
• possesion - possession
• posession - possession
• ablity - ability
• avalaible - available
• sucess - success

I don't think any of them generate many false positives. I've probably patrolled them all quite recently, but new ones come up every month. WereSpielChequers 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spiel, thanks for the suggestions. It turns out my bot checks for some of them already, but there were a few that weren't on the list and I've added them now.

Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know if you've got epesode - episode? Also what proportion of false positives can you handle , or can you screen them out? For example bieng isn't always a typo for being and thrity isn't always a typo for thirty but "thrity - thirty ignoring all articles containing Umrigar" would be great to bot. WereSpielChequers 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have epesode. Consider it added. As regards false positives, I'm happy to add words with occasional false positives, just as long as I don't start seeing hundreds of the damn things all over the place. I regard it as a matter of throughput: if I find I'm spending a lot of time adding article exceptions for a specific false positive, and I can't find any easy way to filter out most of them (eg don't try to correct 'roman' to 'Roman' if it's followed by 'à clé'), then I tend to remove the rule because it takes time away from fixing other less problematic misspellings.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Commander, would your bot be interested in any of the following:

• retrive - retrieve
• retreive - retrieve
• waining - waning
• comunity - community

Also can it handle something as complex as "discuss throw" - "discus throw' (there are a couple of false positives there)? WereSpielChequers 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I've added waining and 'discuss throw', I had the others already. I haven't been using the bot very much recently, which is probably why you haven't seen many changes in the last while. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you probably have 'mute point' - 'moot point' as all 98 occurrences that I found were on talk pages, but then you might expect it to be more common there. WereSpielChequers 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church edit

Hi,

I'm the guy who edited the opening paragraph on the RCC wiki page anonymously - I made an account to write back.

I am in fact an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which was why I disputed the Roman Catholic Church being THE oldest Christian church. Obviously I believe the lines of succession of both communions go back to the Day of Pentecost in 33AD, so I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old as the Roman Catholic Church (hence, why I edited the page to say that it was "one of the oldest Christian churches" rather than the oldest church, seeing as though the two bodies are now separate entities, as the article goes on to say later).

If I could have some more elaboration on why there was anything wrong with my edit, I'd very much appreciate it.

In Christ, Tom. Anastasis777 (talk)

On second thoughts your edit was correct, my apologies I've now reverted to your edit. The RCC can be a contentious article, and if others query that change then the right place to discuss it would be talk:Roman Catholic Church WereSpielChequers 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, what did you think I was getting at? Anastasis777 (talk)

I can only put it down to a lack of caffeine on my part - I must have got the before and after on my screen the wrong way round. WereSpielChequers 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, so you thought that I was saying that the Roman Catholic Church was the oldest church, and that I wasn't giving the Eastern Orthodox a fair hearing. An honest mistake :p

By the way, can you help me with setting up a basic user page please? Anastasis777 (talk)

Yes of course, What do you want to say on it? WereSpielChequers 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, just so that there's something there. That I'm an Australian, convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, British expatriate. All that stuff. And anything basic that everybody's page needs. I'll just build from there. Anastasis777 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, very minimal first draft up - you probably only want one of the Aussie boxes, more are available at Wikipedia:Userboxes. WereSpielChequers 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let you know if I need more help! Anastasis777 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

{{tl:talkback|199.125.109.102}}

Wikipedia:Meetup/London 18

The Victoria and Albert Museum Wikipedia Loves Art event is February 1 (this Sunday), -not- February 8. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

replied on both event pages WereSpielChequers 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Byron Brown FA

I await your response to my actions on Byron Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byron Brown WereSpielChequers 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I have a captive audience, I thought I would ask do you prefer the choice of main images or should I swap with the one of him at the podium?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think you've got that right as it is. WereSpielChequers 10:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, could you return and comment on the FAC discussion page about the 2005 Buffalo Mayoral Results sourcing. This seems to be the only outstanding issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs, replied on the FAC page. WereSpielChequers 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a new reviewer that wants a lot of negative stuff added claiming the article is nearly a hagiography. He wants most stuff unrelated to his political career removed. I have never had a review that wanted all personal stuff except a negative controversy removed before. Please watch the discussion and comment as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've had a quick look, but this needs something longer and may include bits out of my expertise, if we get snowed in again tomorrow I'll have a proper look then. WereSpielChequers 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. When Bryon Brown was unopposed I nominated Saxbe fix, which is facing a lot of opposition. Feel free to help that review. It looks like it may go down. If things don't turn in the next few days, I will withdraw it and renominate it about two weeks from now. I am not sure which one will follow, but maybe I will post Jesse Jackson, Jr.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Wikipedia Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

1. WMF approval and chapter formation process
2. New website
3. Annual General Meeting
4. Wikipedia Loves Art
5. Oxford Wikimania bid
6. Meet-ups

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Are you ready to !vote on the FAC? Noticed you were online, so... Ceran^→//forge 12:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, now that the dating anomaly is covered I'm happy to support. WereSpielChequers 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding Heinrich Bär

I tried to address your questions here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär. Thanks for your copy editing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär, happy to help. WereSpielChequers 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Left a comment on the review page.MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are all your issues addressed? If not please let me know what else I have to address to get your approval. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi MisterBee, I'm happy that the ambiguities have gone and we have better links both to the to the wider picture of the war he was in, and all of the obscure terms such as the various aircraft mentioned. I'm still not happy with some of the prose, I've been a little distracted with another part of my Wiki life this week, but I hope to be more specific on that in a few days. WereSpielChequers 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell week???

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA... make sure that when you answer your questions, you give complete thoughtful answers (this is a job interview) and don't transclude unless you have 2-4 hours to baby sit the RfA. A few months ago, people started opposing if questions sat that first day. That intensity has died down some, but it still rears its ugly head on occassion. Also, if you can highlight some of your article building that would be great---I mean 70% of your edits are in the article space.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SUCKER! Good luck---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck both at your RFA and wikicup -- Tinu Cherian - 12:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My oppose

Thank you for clarifying your position regarding those UAA reports. I wasn't aware that they had created attack pages or other flagrant wiki-violations when I cast my !vote. I still think they aren't username problems, per se, but at least your reasoning was understandable. The oppose is now struck. Cheers mate. Good luck. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wisdom, much appreciated. WereSpielChequers 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviewing

Good idea for uncertain newcomers. I assume you saw that at WT:FAC; perhaps the idea should be posted there to gain some input from other FAC regulars? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it, but if you don't mind I'll hold off posting it to WT:FAC for a couple of days - I'm trying to avoid posting on too many high profile pages this week. In the meantime do you fancy joining in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär? Its an interesting story but needs a bit of help on the prose. WereSpielChequers 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

6 votes away

You are six votes away from getting my support ;0---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Beat the crat gratz

OMG YAY! WP:100! Well done!  GARDEN  23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! iMatthew // talk // 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)