User talk:Dweller/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your babel box[edit]

Hey, Dweller, how's it going? I think I've fixed your Babel box, at last. Let me know what you think about it... phew, it was hard work though, so be gentle on me! Budgiekiller 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Fantastic work, thanks. But... erm... what happened to the most important box, the one at the top, about footie? --Dweller 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely promise that it was not a deliberate omission! Anyway, fixed now, you like? Budgiekiller 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, that's just lovely. Thanks so much. So, I'm still waiting for your RfA. When are you going to give in and allow me (or an editor who doesn't know that you support the horsies) to nominate you? --Dweller 16:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been very tempted. I don't think I could handle the humiliation of being told to s*d off... I'd like to give it a go though... Budgiekiller 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You won't fail on edit count, or on lack of admin coaching. I doubt you'd screw up on questions (I don't get it - anyone with half a brain could do research to give "good" answers, seems an exercise just to whittle out the lazy/daft). That just leaves disputes etc and I doubt too many people would be seriously bothered by any disputes you've had... unless I've missed something. --Dweller 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well let me put it this way, if I received a nomination, then I'm 99% sure I'd accept it...! Budgiekiller 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NCFC Cat[edit]

Thanks for the message re the category - you're the only other canary that I've so far come accross on here, but I'll certainly pass it on to any others that I see. Fingers crossed that we don't get humiliated by Tamworth on national TV on saturday........--EH74DK 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Universe as this week's WP:AID winner[edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Universe was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the nomination! Of course, I accept, but I'll need to give the questions some consideration - it'd be nice to come up with something original in an RFA for a change! I'll answer them shortly and let you know. Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, wikispace edits will be my downfall methinks... been too busy vandalhunting! We'll see... Budgiekiller 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks again for your support - I think you get a vote too by the way!! You may well hold the record for most beaten nominator to vote! Budgiekiller 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for modifying my text in the RFA. Not going too spritely right now, is it?! Seems amazing that I've got about half a dozen administrators supporting me though. Very pleased with that. Perhaps I shouldn't have made my last 5000 edits vandal hunting, all the rest of the work seems to be overlooked. Only 10k edits mind you... man, do I sound bitter?! Budgiekiller 13:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
lol. If it's "not the done thing" for the nominee to respond to all the opposes, then play the game. I think tone is the key thing (and your's is unfailingly polite), but if Chacor is right, there's no point in bucking the system. --Dweller 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's fine. I would have responded to him but like I said, I thought it was covered better by the admin and other editor! Seems amazing to me that I need to have more wikispace edits, I'm not sure that many people are seriously looking at the contributions I've made though. Better crack into those WP:AFDs so when you renominate me in a couple of months people will have nothing to complain about! Budgiekiller 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your help. Yes, you did great on Sports. Every little bit helps. If you find some spare time, please drop by anytime! Any help you could provide in completing these lists would be greatly appreciated. They definitely need more builders and maintainers.  The Transhumanist   11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, sir. The "concepts" list is hard work. If you could keep one eye on my unilateral decision-making about what is a concept and what isn't, I'd appreciate it, as I dislike the idea of being a "know all". I'll take a generous approach towards avoiding deletion, where I'm unsure. --Dweller 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, 4-0 with twenty to go. "Budgies scrape through" would be my headline... fingers crossed for the tractors this afternoon?! Fancy a local derby fourth round tie? Budgiekiller 13:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

re: AfD for Muslim Jew[edit]

Greetings. Your objections are legitimate objections to the article's name, not its contents. Bad naming choice is not grounds for AfD. As you read through the AfD, you'll find pretty sound opposition to the name of the article, but a general consensus that the article should be kept. If you have proposals for renaming, now is the time to to bring them up on the article's talk page. Cheers, Tomertalk 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Greg Bownds[edit]

Editor RWR8189 is actually a well established user, so you might want to strikethrough or remove your comments. Despite Afds started by sockpuppets of banned users being rightly dismissed, there's nothing to prevent another editor (who is obviously acting in good faith) from nominating them afterwards. Regards. One Night In Hackney 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked. Makes no sense for anyone else to AfD someone who clearly passes our notability criteria. --Dweller 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair at the time it did lack any sources (reliable or otherwise) to prove his notability. One Night In Hackney 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that mean it deserves some {{fact}} tags, rather than AfD? --Dweller 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Possibly. The nominator does state "A Google search turns up no reliable sources and about 90 unique hits", which makes it reasonable enough. It's not unreasonable to propose deletion under those circumstances, although some would suggest adding tags then proposing for deletion if no sources are added within a reasonable time. One Night In Hackney 13:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Google count is far less relevant than assertions of notability in the article. --Dweller 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't his point though. The assertions of notability need to be verifiable by reliable sources, and they weren't at the time. One Night In Hackney 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is going circular. My point was that in that case, slap on a tag, rather than taking it to AfD. --Dweller 13:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As he said, he looked on Google and the search turned up no reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Restored! Pow![edit]

Okay! It feels weird to restore an article just to take it to AFD, where it'll certainly be deleted, but I guess that's why I'm a rouge admin. -- Merope 15:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've become a lot less trigger happy when tagging newbie speedies in recent months. Also, I don't trust my unilateral judgement in a case where the user claims notability... I guess that's why I'm not an admin at all! <grins>. Thanks for your good humour. --Dweller 15:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hate everything and everyone, and will only be happy when Wikipedia is completely empty. Anyway, I fixed the nom -- what I think happened is that you copied and pasted the template and then clicked "preloaded debate". Maybe? Whatever, I think it's working. Did you list it on the AFD page (step 3)? -- Merope 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I just laughed out loud at your comment. Thanks for that, it's been a miserable day. I did click preloaded, but that usually works for me. Comparing the diffs, it seems I might have deleted a subst message by accident. Yup, I did step 3. I've nommed (I would guess) a few dozen AfDs without problem - I can usually follow idiot-proof instructions. Anyway, thanks for being a helpful admin. --Dweller 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. We all have days where all of our edits, well, suck. Be thankful you don't have all these extra buttons marked "delete"--then you can really cock things up. As I've been known to do. Repeatedly. -- Merope 15:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ooh! Ooh! A fallible admin! Where do I start a recall petition? I expect all admins to be godlike. --Dweller 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not alone. You can register a complaint here. ;) -- Merope 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. --Dweller 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, in response to your comment on my talk page, that is the first time I've ever seen my gender used as a reason for my good sense of humor. Usually I get, "You're really funny. And not even 'for a girl'-funny." And then I say, "Yeah, I punch pretty good, too" and then POW right in the neck. ... not really, but it would explain my lack of dates. ... as if I needed something to explain that, what with my being an ADMINISTRATOR ON WIKIPEDIA. I need a beer.-- Merope 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Two types of funny. "Grumpy funny" men (c.f. Jack Dee, perhaps the epitome) do it very well and it sells tickets. Pleasant funny is a joy to correspond with and us blokes are usually too pumped with testosterone to do that very well. Yours, hormonally, --Dweller 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Summer of four captains (part one of an ongoing saga, no doubt)[edit]


I was wondering that, since the 1988 test series vs Windies isn't documented within Wikipedia, is it worth using the First Class match result template (or create a smaller, less detailed one) so that the result of each test match can succinctly and elegantly be placed on the page? Budgiekiller 17:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Go for it. --Dweller 17:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, we need some citations to show that is a common and standard phrase. There are just two non-wiki mentions online. One comes from Times via Cricinfo, but the author has just mentioned it in passing (" It was the summer of four captains, four defeats, disgrace and disarray.") and not as a specific phrase. The other one is "this day down the years". IMO, there should be something to show that the phrase is worth an article. Tintin (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it. Unfortunately, I don't have a Wisden for that season. --Dweller 18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, hope you enjoyed Casualty! Two quick things, first, if the summer of 4 capts becomes not notable enough, perhaps we just convert it to the 1988 Windies tour of england, that's notable and we can incorporate the 4 capts business in the article. Second, looks like I'm gathering a storm of negativity in the RFA, and I just wanted to say that I very much appreciate your support throughout. It'll be all over in a couple of days and looking back over previous RFA's, it ain't gonna happen, too much uncertainty over my "understanding of policy", understanding of WP:SNOW and "poor RFA etiquette" (which, frankly, I find appalling in WP, it's a wiki). Now that's off my chest, Thursday night we'll see what the future brings. Phew. Right, more tomorrow. Ciao. Budgiekiller 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that too, about the title. There's at least one excellent source for the name, so it will need to remain, but as a title is worse than dubious, unless I can turn something up. Re the RfA, I think with you adding WP edits now and therefore hopefully not having many opposes to respond to, you should sail through in a few weeks. --Dweller 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I put a note on the talkpage thread last night. Not sure it was particularly helpful! Johnlp 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Sport Topics[edit]

In that case you should add a warning to the editors in non-wiki code at the begining of that section. Thanks Kevlar67 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I did?!? --Dweller 10:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Just saw it. Good work. Kevlar67 10:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll add some thoughts, however. TV viewership, in particular the cited list is not the only thing to look at. TVs aren't universally owned. TV viewership doesn't corralate well with which governing bodies are the most important. Listing the NBA finals is a curious way of including FIBA, which doesn't sanction the NBA finals in any way. American football doesn't have an international body whatsoever, even though the Super Bowl is well watched. Just thoughts. Kevlar67 11:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, useful. I started by looking at participation, but some of the claims of participation are just silly. Try Googling to find how many people are claimed to play volleyball and handball. --Dweller 11:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


...done. I took the Gooch picture out, it seemed (a) incongruous there and (b) it's a dodgy picture anyway. It doesn't particularly enhance the article, especially as we don't have pictures of the other three... Anyway, let me know what you think and where we should go next. Budgiekiller 18:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

External Link Deletion Again[edit]

Hello, Dweller! I'm having a bit of a problem again, and I wanted to come to you first since you were helpful last time. I've added some informational content (feel free to see any of the pages) to some pages. They are wholly informational, and I made sure that the links did not in any way promote any hospital or service. They are informational pages about diseases and procedures that were purchased for informational use. I linked them to the appropriate pages saying that they were "Informational guide about [insert topic]" since that's exactly what they were. However, they've now been taken down. It was my understanding through our conversations and the other moderators that such articles were appropriate and permissible. I don't understand why suddenly yet another moderator finds it inappropriate despite the entirety of the article being wholly informational. Please help! Thanks a ton! TBAmes 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"The" RFA[edit]

Hey, don't sweat it with the various "beligerent" comments, it's pretty obvious that I've blown it by not obeying the unwritten rules of "how to do an RFA" so we'll just have to try again sometime soon. Thanks for everything anyway. Let's get on with something else! The Rambling Man 08:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the editor formally known as Budgiekiller).

I've already responded to The Rambling Man on his talk page already. Terence Ong 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Dweller 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"The" LeBreicht[edit]

With Respect, I see nothing on your Not list that iliminates me, and if you remember, I asked for help in finding the correct Wiki space which might best suit me You did not help me at the time. I too have a life and if you want me to respect yours please respect mine . What is there on Usr: AlphaMale that is so much more intelectual than usr:LebreichtNow please give me my user page back and tell me (politely) where I should place it >>> Lebreicht

Polite response is at User talk:Alphachimp --Dweller 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

cc. Dewller

Thank you --Jim Douglas Your quite right, you dont know what was on Lebreicht thats because it was arbitrarily deleted by user:Alphachimp. But with Respect it's well known that a negative cannot be proved. Therefor your presumption falls on two counts. Lebreicht was a well crafted profile. It was created with a great deal of effort both offline and on (mainly off) As to my History within you Wiki, you have no idea what my areas of experience are and therefor cannot tell which pages I regularly view, but that I don't critically slash them about, (thats a negative ofcourse), dosn't mean that I'm not contributing. I varify my facts and even then proceed with caution, (where angels fear to tread!). A current area of expertise is 'The Mystisism surrounding Rennes Le Chateau', for which I would like to gather a compehensive Encyclopedic reference, whilst at the same time, in parrallel, creating fiction and fantasy from some very fertile sources. With very limited resources I am getting on with this project. I did hope for a little help and that was state in ..Lebreicht


Whatever gives you the idea that candidates must have a minimum of six months experience in order to pass RFA? People regularly pass with significantly less than that. >Radiant< 13:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. If you inferred otherwise, it's your error. The response I made to at ([1]) was based entirely on my judgement of them. --Dweller 13:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unsigned comment[edit]

I thought it would be cheeky to slap an unsigned after your kind words at User talk:EdwinCasadoBaez, so instead I'm dropping you a line to let you know you forgot! :-) PS I think your explanation was charming and a wonderful example of WP:BITE in action. --Dweller 14:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You think that I bit when I left the message? I designed it to be constructive, can you let me know where I can improve it, please? (aeropagitica) 14:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
NO!!!! The opposite! I think it was wonderful!!!! --Dweller 14:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lift me up consume my darkness, Let me travel even higher[edit]

And a great big HELLO to you back. Cheers. -- No Guru 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the next couplet, "I will walk out of the darkness and I'll walk into the light, And I will sing the Song of Ages, and the dawn will end the night." <grins> --Dweller 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That thing that's been going on for a bit...[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Dweller, for your continued, unfailing and incredible support during my failed AFD, and for all your other polite, encouraging and useful contributions to WP, I wish I could award more than a barnstar, but for the time being, this is it. Thanks for everything! The Rambling Man 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) The artist formerly known as Budgiekiller

Peace award[edit]

Yes, I did. Thank you. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Phew. Glad of that... you deserved it. --Dweller 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Greatly Appreciated[edit]

Dweller, I greatly appreciate you taking a look at those pages and links. Also, I wanted to let you know I responded to the other moderator's remarks on my talk page. Again, your help is greatly appreciated. TBAmes 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Bäackpain, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. If you do not agree with deletion as I have suggested via this method, I'm not entirely sure whether I would be inclined to go through AFD or RFC processes in an effort to determine what to do with the article and its accompanying article. Erechtheus 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. --Dweller 15:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandal-only[edit]

Once he's been warned, you can list him on AIV, and people there will take care of it as they see fit. (Incidentally, if his vandalism has been deleted, it helps to provide links to what the deleted articles were; there's no way of tracking it down otherwise.) Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Van Morrison Article[edit]

Dweller: Thanks for your encouragement on my work on Van Morrison. I'm an avid reader but never considered myself a skilled writer. I felt like Morrison's huge contribution to music was underrepresented even on his own Wikipedia article. So I set about the task of learning as much about him as possible and trying in an unbiased way to show the impact he has had on music for the last forty-odd years. I've changed the cited parts of the article that were considered POV by AcupofCoffee and written her a note stating so. She did not correspond with me before marking the article POV. I would have changed it immediately until I had time to go back and cite sources. How long do I wait for her to either take the POV off of the article or correspond with me on how to further change it? I'm new to this and quite dismayed to see how someone can do this to your work without first corresponding with you about it. Can you give me some advice on this matter. Thanks so much...Agadant 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the tag is a little tricky. See WP:NPOVD. You need to have consensus that it's no longer POV before you remove it. Ask a specific question on the article talk page and see what people think - I think if no-one thinks it's POV after a few days, you'll be justified in removing the tag. --Dweller 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Thanks. Not sure about the data though. Isn't this partly a reflection of the fact I don't put edit summary on talk pages only on mainspace or have a got the data wrong? --BozMo talk 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it just differentiates between edits you tick as minor and those you don't. You can adjust your preferences so that if you forget to complete an edit summary you'll be reminded. They're useful, even on talk pages, because when someone flicks through the page history, they can find the diff they're interested in more easily. Good luck. --Dweller 08:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The tip on preferences is particularly good, will do it. The RFA is interesting in that it seems to be turning into a ballot on commitment rather about my edits/knowledge. In that regard I ought to say it is pleasantly unpersonal. --BozMo talk 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA[edit]

TeckWiz's RFA
I would like to thank you for helping the Wikipedia community determine if I should become a sysop by voting oppose on my second RFA. Many opposes were because of my "different" answer to question two, which I still partly agree with. I withdrew per WP:SNOW, as consensus to promote was against me. I will continue to improve until one day, I become an admin. Happy editing! --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Dweller. I've been trying to get back on with our joint-project and I'm having trouble finding the citation you referenced for the "Summer of four captains" nickname. It's a slippery eel and I'm beginning to wonder if we should convert the page to a standard cricket tour page? Either way, hopefully you'll be able to spend some time on it soon, along with anyone else who may be interested! Cheers! The Rambling Man 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Point noted[edit]

I have noted your point on messaging the creator and will do so from now on, but you have to agree that that article was spam. thank you for the tip Yungur 10:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatant! --Dweller 10:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BC or should it be BPC??[edit]

It is not just my opinion it is the opinion of a large number of professional british Archaeologists that this BCE fad is rediculous. What is more if you had bothered to look rather than taking offence at a correction is that the article was using at least three different forms of dating which from memory were BC BCE B.C.E. and B.C. There is nothing more infuriating than to have to keep searching for articles with three of four different combinations of the above simply because some people can't accept that BC is a point in time and not some acrynym. If it meant Before Christ it would be written B.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I'm not sure who took offence, but it certainly wasn't me. The "opinion of a large number of professional british Archaeologists that this BCE fad is rediculous" is irrelevant. This is not the journal of a group of British Archaeologists. Our manual of style allows for appropriate use of BCE and you should not arbitrarily edit war. The article should be consistent, yet I see that in the version before you changed to BC, it was indeed consistent. --Dweller 15:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Dweller, thanks again for all of your help. Have you read over the discussion on my talk page? I still need clarification on what can and cannot be linked. As I noted, the links were wholly informational, which you and the previous moderators agreed were permissible. Thanks! TBAmes 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Plews[edit]

You're very welcome. :) I confess that I don't know what you mean by "speedied", not yet being up on all the Wiki jargon. JH 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightement. JH 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Your help was appreciated...--BozMo talk 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner[edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 12:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


No problem. Wouldn't have noticed if I didn't actually put myself on the review list. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

HP fan fiction[edit]

Thanks so much for "sticking your nose in," as you put it...I didn't know there was a reset function and was quite depressed for a while, but now I see hope again!! Labrt2004 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit the action was hasty, but I suppose I didn't make it clear in my edit summary that I had merged all information that conformed with the web notability guidelines and the discussion at Talk:Harry Potter fandom. Anyway, it does deserve discussion, and I've put my comments at Talk:Harry Potter fan fiction. Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jens Bach[edit]

Hi Dweller. I just tagged the above article (you commented on the creators talk page). It has been blanked by the author, but I've left it that way and put a {{db-empty}} tag on it. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Glad you left the message... nice to treat the newbies well. I don't think there was really an option to the tag you placed. I suspect he's posted to the English WP by accident, but I wasn't sure. --Dweller 10:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Sex[edit]

Really, I have a copy of the book on my shelf. The name 'Oscar Moore' is a pseudonym, which is why you can't find it on an Old Habs list.

I've been a Wikipedian since 2004 and have been an admin for over a year - why would I be hoaxing? The Land 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the article history. A lot of people have linked all kinds of spurious alumni to the article in some odd attempt to malign the school by linking it with people like Oswald Moseley. You'll also see that I tracked down Oscar Moore through the Old Habs site and reverted back to your edit (I don't think it is pen name). Does the book include much about his school life? --Dweller 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
A fair bit. And what's there is far more interesting (IMV at least) than the trash in 'New Boy'. Glad that's sorted out! The Land 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. A heck of a lot of New Boy actually happened. Then again, most of the second half... didn't. --Dweller 11:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
So what's your link to Habs and/or William Sutcliffe? The Land 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What's your's?!?!? --Dweller 12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Wall Street Crash of 1929 as this week's WP:ACID winner[edit]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stuart Clark[edit]

Thanks, Dweller. I've added two more suspected socks there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stuart Clark[edit]

Hey Dweller you retard, I am Stuart Clark's number 1 fan, and have actually got him to visit our fan club. Mate i know my cricket, and belive me He is a carbon bloody copy of Curtly Ambrose, if you have a problem with that, instead of vandalising my hard investigative and articulative work, discuss it with me first, coz obviously you seem to know more about the wildlife of the southern hemisphere of neptune than cricket —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuartRupertClark (talkcontribs) 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Stuart. Glad to meet you. As you seem new to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to point you to a few policies you need to read, notably WP:CIVIL and WP:USERNAME. Personally, I happily followed the guideline WP:AGF when I reverted your edit to Brian Lara. I'd welcome your expertise in editing constructively and helping to build this encyclopedia. --Dweller 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dweller, my name is Bharat and i belive Clark is seriously a protege of Ambrose—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat99 (talkcontribs)

Are you the same person that posted above ("Hey Dweller you retard...")? --Dweller 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you read WP:NPOV. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Admin[edit]

No, I'm not. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be at the moment. Thank you for asking, but I've got far too little time at the moment to do a good job of it, and also I don't need any excuses for spending any more time on Wikipedia! Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Norwich City edits[edit]

Thanks man, well appreciated. -- Mattythewhite 10:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your kind comments on my Torah portion pages. I appreciate it, and will continue to try to improve them. Let me know if you ever see a way to make them better. Thanks again. All the best, Dauster 13:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your thoughts. I genuinely appreciate them. I was otherwise involved this weekend so did not have a chance to withdraw earlier. Despite the result, I would say this has actually been, strangely, a positive experience. Or at least I hope in the long run it will turn out to have been one. Fan-1967 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey! Thanks for your message and for offering to help... I'm not in need of specific help at the moment but when I am, you'll be the first to know! ;-) Winry5 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, It's a Hard Life, was selected for DYK![edit]

This is what I did with your nomination. You're welcome. Shaundakulbara 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. I'm new to the process... and the lack of edit summary on your diff left me bewildered. I'm delighted!!! --Dweller 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On January 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article It's a Hard Life, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

"Hi. Can I bring to your attention that you currently have 9% edit summaries for recent major edits and 0% for minor. Please will you try to use this feature. Edit summaries are really useful for helping nitwits like me understand what you're doing and why. They're also excellent for helping to understand at a glance the History page of a busy article, particularly when dealing with vandalism. In your preferences, you can change a setting to remind you to complete the edit summary if (like I did) you otherwise find it difficult to remember. On a personal note, the DYK template page is a little daunting and bureaucratic at first view and use of edit summaries here will help newcomers understand the process. Thanks for reading this ramble... I'd be delighted if you considered this request. --Dweller 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)"

I will try but do find it hard to remember. Sorry if I caused you any problems. Shaundakulbara 13:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cartago delenda est[edit]

Hi! I noticed your post about Cartago delenda est article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, so I thought I'd take a look. (Great idea for an article!) I've included a more accurate statement about the grammar of the sentence. EALacey 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment... and thanks even more for the contributions. --Dweller 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Been a while...[edit]

Hey, real life is taking its toll at the moment, but I'm keen to work on the GA again. I haven't seen any input from anyone else yet, I thought you mentioned another fella...

I'll be here, or hereabouts, whenever. I have some personal things to deal with (happy to talk emails by the way) so not sure how much time I can dedicate right now. Mail me, and we'll make something happen. All the best... The Rambling Man 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup[edit]

Thank-you for your supportive comments. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

regarding your supposition of a missing quotation or citation from my !vote[edit]

if you really think something is missing, instead of trolling my talkpage, I suggest your efforts are better spent on the RfA page in question. My entire quotation was made on that page by the subject of the relevant RfA. That you appear ignorant of that fact yet simultaneously feel in a position to criticize me, is doubly distressing, and quadruply disgusting. Take some responsibility for your actions. Thanks a lot. Tomertalk 08:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply and I double don't understand your anger. I've not criticised you. If you can't assume good faith and you have such appalling civility problems I have no interest in furthering this discussion. --Dweller 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I utterly fail to understand your playing the "victim" here. I think what I said what quite straightforward, and not even remotely hostile. If you regard disagreement as "appalling civility problems", I guess I really can't help that, but perhaps if that's the case WP isn't the place for you. Cheers, Tomertalk 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me see, you've accused me of "trolling" your talk page, being "ignorant", "distressing" you, and "disgusting" you. All for innocently pointing out that it seemed that you might have made a typo. Gosh, I'd hate to see the reaction if I'd heavily criticised you for something. --Dweller 09:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no record that you've pointed out that I seemed to have made a typo, innocently or otherwise, neither on my talkpage nor here, to say nothing of on the relevant RfA page. Saying I've made an accusation of "trolling" is overstating things a bit excessively. Your pitiful appeal to emotion in compounding your complaint against me with your imagined woundedness at my describing your message to me as both distressing and disgusting, is, as Dan Aykroyd would say in Trading Places, "pathetic in the extreme". I can't help but notice that in this latest diatribe you haven't mentioned your earlier charge of my supposedly irrational "anger". Meanwhile, you haven't bothered to respond to my request that you back up your initial assertion that I require further citation or quotation, beyond the nominee's own words as stated (and quoted by me) to back up my initial objection. If you have something more than smoke and mirrors to present, fine, do so. Otherwise siddown and hushup. Tomertalk 09:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Read just a few lines higher and you'll see where you accused me of trolling. Your anger is misplaced, irrational and offensive. And thoroughly unworthy of an admin. --Dweller 09:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright I'm going to email mode. Tomertalk 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
With a clearer head, I finally figured out what you were talking about last night. Relevant diff added here. Sorry for all the hystrionics. :-\ Tomertalk 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)