User talk:Orrelly Man

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Re: <Year> in sports

They may qualify for deletion under WP:R3, however as some of these have histories as articles and could very probably have some incoming links from elsewhere, it's probably better to leave them as is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having taken a look at some of them, they don't have a lot of incoming links; however, several seem like plausible search terms and should probably be held for that reason. If you do still feel they should be removed, you can nominate them for deletion at WP:RFD, where users will have a chance to discuss the issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha games list

I took the prod tag that you added off of Buddha games list. I think that there is probably enough verifiable material of significance to warrant either improving the article, or merging it with Brahmajala Sutta (Theravada). My more complete explanation of the prod removal is at Talk:Buddha games list. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your rationale and agree that the article should remain. Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Username

Is your username a reference to Fawlty Towers by any chance?--DFS454 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thought so! Did you hear about Sachsgate? --DFS454 (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prods

"unresolved issues" is not a clear enough reason for deletion -- I have removed all prods that no not say why the article should be deleted. If articles are unreferenced, please look in appropriate sources for references, and, if you cannot find them, then nominate for deletion on that basis at AfD, saying how you searched. I call to your attention WP:BEFORE: according to WP:Deletion policy, deletion is a last resort if it is impossible to improve the article. There is no time limit. DGG (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And do you honestly think those articles will be improved? --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you didn't leave a message letting the article creator of Sacramento Savages that you prod-ed the page. While not required, it is just common courtesy to leave the creator a message. A template for this is provided both on WP:PROD and is also included on the article's prod box. Killiondude (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article history, the "red link userid" edited the page (a bunch of times) after you proded it. Extrapolating from that, I'd say he was interested in keeping it, and that it wouldn't have been a waste of time in notifying them. I didn't say I disagreed with the prod (I actually tried to find refs, and couldn't). Killiondude (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YearsProject

Hello. On 24 Jan you reverted a change to Template:YearsProject with the edit summary "redesigned to comply with other projects and allow for future development". I'm wondering what you meant by that and whether we can help to fix it. You are much more likely to comply with other projects if you use the {{WPBannerMeta}} than otherwise, in my opinion. Regards, Martin^Msgj 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years in sports

Hi, I see that you have recently rearranged some Years in sports articles. I worked on them when they were mainly decades rather than years. Have you worked much on content or primarily on re-arrangement (1741-1760, etc)?

At a long glance but no close study, it appears that (a) there is always a References section which is always empty, and (b) there is always a link to some particular "event" or particular "history" article where more information may be found. There are some exceptions but is that the design? I will be grateful for reply in our User pages or at WP:sports talk. --P64 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the template TOCright in the 1701 to 1740 article. I am a fan of TOCright, at least when there is no other box or image displayed at right. This isn't a strong opinion but a demonstration and suggestion for general use. --P64 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable in the future?

As a member of the WikiProject Years, could you please contribute to this discussion? Thank you. ––bender235 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

"I think you are seeing this in purely admin terms and forgetting the readers. If there is one act of stupidity every eight hours, such as redirecting to some children's game, then the chances are that a sizeable number of readers will try to look up cricket in that time and be put off the site. The main criticism of Wikipedia in the real world is that it cannot guarantee the credibility of its articles because it is open to vandalism.

A second criticism I often hear is that the so-called administrators are only interested in applying the rules to suit themselves and are not particularly bothered about the poor reader who is trying to research a subject and cannot do so because the article has been wrecked. The fact that you come along five minutes after he has left in disgust doesn't help the situation at all. The point is that he has left in disgust.

When dealing with cretins three times a day, prevention is necessary. Reverting does not repair the damage in terms of the lost reader." Orrelly Man

That's the most sense I've heard on here for a long time. :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict ;) Thanks for fixing that mess. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British cricketers

What about the interwiki links? Should this category be removed elsewhere as well? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April fools

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG		Port-a-Potty!!!
		DFS454 (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!! Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Thank you. Just what I've always wanted! :-) --Orrelly Man (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game events

FYI (prod contested). MuZemike 05:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Just wanted to apologise and explain that my rollback of your edit on the Talk:WPCric page was a mis-click, not a reflection of what I thought of your contribution! I Undid myself as soon as I realised. The-Pope (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]