Archives |
---|
2 May 2016 |
|
Contents
- 1 Precious anniversary
- 2 Margate
- 3 Ali Raymi GOD Alias
- 4 Re: old TC FA's?
- 5 Ali Raymi alias "Great" was never used by Ali Raymi
- 6 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 18, 2016
- 7 TFAR?
- 8 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 28, 2016
- 9 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2016
- 10 Laura Branigan Consensus discussion
- 11 Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2016
- 12 Request
- 13 Thank you!
- 14 Aggers
- 15 Laura Branigan RfC close
- 16 Laura Branigan
- 17 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amakuru
- 18 New Challenge
- 19 Cherno More
- 20 Errol Crossan
- 21 Crossan
Precious anniversary
gentle advice | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 390 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Tyvm! Again! --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Dweller, welcome to the cabal of the outcasts! You must be brave, to join those who with battleground behaviour and in flash-mob action will not rest before they have forced an infobox on all articles, allegedly ;) - Welcome! Look around and watch WP:QAIPOST, and post there what you think is interesting for all. Feel free to add suggestions to the TFAR table. Avoid the infobox topic, for your health ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I have a general question, being no native speaker of English: can a statement be a "personal attack" if it is not directed at one person but a group? I thought then "personal" would not apply, but I may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Yes. If someone insulted, say, all British people, then each British person could, and probably would, take the insult personally. The "crime" is in attacking an aspect of someone's person, which can be done against one, or many, people at once. Harrias talk 19:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, I agree with Harrias. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand what you explained, but think that to call it "personal attack" is sort of misleading. The other day I read "snide or derogatory comment" which I think would be kind of more precise. ("My general point was, that if I feel I need to make to make a snide or derogatory comment about someone - I think it's better form to do it to their face (their talk page), or at the very least in a conversation they are already engaged in.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- In a yes/no discussion, someone on the side of "yes" who calls all supporters of "no" "morons and idiots" is making a personal attack and making snide/derogatory comments. He's making an attack on the personalities of the other people. That he's doing so to a group makes no difference. But this may just be semantics. Either way, it's totally unacceptable. Play the ball, not the man. Make arguments, don't toss in comments about people. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I had forgotten that you were the behind the old values, which I signed early ;) - If you ever see me making negative comments about people, call me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very proud of User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. I wish a) it had wider exposure and b) that I can always remain true to it. --Dweller (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Advertise on WP:QAIPOST ;) - also the advice for wiki-stressed editors which I signed as no 1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very proud of User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. I wish a) it had wider exposure and b) that I can always remain true to it. --Dweller (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I had forgotten that you were the behind the old values, which I signed early ;) - If you ever see me making negative comments about people, call me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- In a yes/no discussion, someone on the side of "yes" who calls all supporters of "no" "morons and idiots" is making a personal attack and making snide/derogatory comments. He's making an attack on the personalities of the other people. That he's doing so to a group makes no difference. But this may just be semantics. Either way, it's totally unacceptable. Play the ball, not the man. Make arguments, don't toss in comments about people. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I understand what you explained, but think that to call it "personal attack" is sort of misleading. The other day I read "snide or derogatory comment" which I think would be kind of more precise. ("My general point was, that if I feel I need to make to make a snide or derogatory comment about someone - I think it's better form to do it to their face (their talk page), or at the very least in a conversation they are already engaged in.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, I agree with Harrias. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Margate
I'll see what I can do............. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ali Raymi GOD Alias
Its established within boxing that Ali Raymi used the alias GOD, take a look at the references & do a google search: Ali Raymi "God" Vadimhalicki (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Re: old TC FA's?
Hey there. I would love to review some older featured articles, but I honestly don't have the time. My real life schedule is regularly quite busy, and the limited time I do have, I'd rather improve existing articles that might not be as good, as opposed to doing more work to a existing featured articles. I hope that doesn't make me a bad Wikipedian, I just don't have the time like I used to! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. It doesn't make you a bad anything! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ali Raymi alias "Great" was never used by Ali Raymi
Hey Dweller, with all respect where did you get the alias "Great" from? In boxing we know Ali Raymi Alias GOD & brand TGE (The Greatest Ever) a play on Floyd Mayweather TBE (The Best Ever), its well documented so this is part of boxing hype that Ali Raymi used. I am starting to understand that you might be taking this in the literal religious context, but you shouldn't because if you follow boxing, fighters use such ubiquitous claims. Andre Ward casually calls himself SOG (Son of God) Vadimhalicki (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I didn't insert that. It was already there, and referenced. If you want to suggest a different nickname, you'll need to provide a reference from a reliable source. --Dweller (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not suggesting a new nickname, his nickname has always been GOD, not sure who switched it to Great (I thought it was you). Anyways below are the sources:
Ref 1 Raymi who’s alias is simply ‘God’ has broken the record for consecutive first round knockouts as he has won all 21 of his bouts in the opening round. Furthermore when looking at his record every fighter he has faced so far has been undefeated before facing the 40 year old God. [1]
Ref 2 Some of the more hilarious comments are below from a fellow whose self-anointed nicknames are ‘The Apotheosis’ ‘The Legendary Entity’ ‘The Legendary Essence’,’The Greatest Ever’ and ‘GOD’ [2]
Ref 3 The braggadocios knockout artist called himself “God”, and was never shy about issuing challenges to the top fighters of the division [3]
I removed dead links Vadimhalicki (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yup. I also found it in one of the links, and removed a few. Good work. --Dweller (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 18, 2016
Would you be interested in working on the TFA summary for some of the British and Australian sports articles? Maybe this one? - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hawkeye is working on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed this. Ask again. I've been v busy IRL. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hawkeye doesn't want it. Still interested? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't think I could edit it, not being an admin. But I was able to tweak the wording anyway. Reduced it down to 1,200 characters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Most strangely, the article does not mention the bit that every Australian remembers: Norman May yelling " "GOLD, GOLD for Australia, GOLD!" Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't think I could edit it, not being an admin. But I was able to tweak the wording anyway. Reduced it down to 1,200 characters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hawkeye doesn't want it. Still interested? - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
TFAR?
What do think of nominating Jonathan Agnew for TFA on his birthday? I would do it, but still hope to nom 27 March, which is too close. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Great idea. The Rambling Man, you like? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jonathan Agnew --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 28, 2016
How about this one? - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know pretty much nuffink about the boat race. OK. A tiny bit. But I've never watched it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2016
"including" is missing an antecedent (you could leave it in I guess, but I'd drop it and just say "achieving"). I'm not sure what a Test cap is (and I can't find the answer at the link or via a Google search, so perhaps readers will be confused too). Otherwise, it looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've worked on it and added some colour. I'll fix the cap issue now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looks great, but now it's 1295 characters. 1200 is a hard cap, and 1150 is better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I'll cut. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looks great, but now it's 1295 characters. 1200 is a hard cap, and 1150 is better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your cricket player and broadcaster!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- How about Paul Collingwood for his 40th birthday on 26 May? You can do it! - If you want to review see FAC Requiem (Reger) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Laura Branigan Consensus discussion
I'm wondering how much longer there should be to get everyone's say so. The 21st was the last time someone gave a opinion in the section. Devilmanozzy (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2016
More cricket, if you're interested. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- So soon after Agnew? OK. I'll take a peek. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Replying to "Howzat": TFA is one paragraph of around 1150 characters ... your approach was exactly right and conservative, but I had to trim. Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Request
Please delete the redirect at Index of chess articles to make way for a new article (and new addition to the set of indexes at Portal:Contents/Indices).
Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry - is this still waiting to be done? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for the lovely barnstar! Happy editing, and thanks for spreading the joy. Neutralitytalk 20:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Aggers
The Biography Barnstar | ||
To Dweller, thank you for helping to write the article "Jonathan Agnew". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
It is good to see the article on the main page. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I see you've also awarded The Rambling Man, who is a Featured star himself. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Laura Branigan RfC close
I added more references for the 1952 DOB after you closed the RfC. I had been looking for sources and didn't know you would close it before the 30 days were up. I'm not asking for a re-evaluation or anything like that, I just wanted to give you heads up since you wrote in your closing "despite the empty section above", I also left a note on the TP that the sources were added after your close. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the courteous note. I did try to keep the page updated with indications of timing, but it's obviously helpful to have someone trying to uncover RS at any time. I'll take a look when I get a mo. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Laura Branigan
Hello. Would you mind reopening the RFC on Talk:Laura Branigan? It was closed after 16 days (since it was opened on 19 March it ought to still be running), but the discussion has continued, and several more editors have joined, posting links to sources supporting 1952 as year of birth. Devilmanozzy, who started it all, has also started to wholesale removal of other sourced material from the article (see diff), claiming that the RFC close gives them the right to not only change the year of birth but also remove whatever they want. Reverting to the old manager's preferred version, showing that it's not an uninvolved editor who just happened to see a mention of Laura Branigan on another website, as claimed earlier, but the same user who has "owned" the article since 2006, repeatedly removing everything they don't like... Thomas.W talk 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (originally posted, by mistake, on User talk:Doug Weller instead of here...)
- Thanks. I'll address this at the talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amakuru
Just reading the section of Amakuru's RfA concerning your removal of the word despot. Doing a Google search for the subject's name and the word despot, I find it is a fairly widespread description of him. It is used by respected newspapers and media sources such as The Times, The Telegraph, the BBC, and others. And it's not just newspapers - various books discuss him with that description: [1], [2], [3]. It seems that the description is so widespread that it would be appropriate for someone to consider as biased an article on him which does not discuss that aspect of opinions of his rule. As such it appears the oppose comment was justified, and can only really be understood with the term despot replaced. I understand why you went for the safe option of removing it, but people, including myself after looking into the matter, are feeling that the removal was not only unnecessary, but also distorts the oppose comment. Would you consider restoring the word? Or would you object if I restored it if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd rather you didn't, thanks. The comments aren't revdeleted, so if anyone is really that interested, they can always look through the diffs. We either take BLP seriously, or we don't - we can't ignore it in some circumstances and I don't agree there's an IAR situation here. There's already been enough hoo-ha at that RfA on matters that don't really relate. I'd rather it wasn't further sisturbed and editors continiue to focus on the candidate and their merits. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
New Challenge
I have submitted a new challenge for you at User:Dweller/Challenge Dweller. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Cherno More
Hi, can you take a look at PFC Cherno More Varna article and its talk page. I'm dealing with a user that seriously vadalises club history. I tried to clean up but he keeps coming back reverting to previous disputable versions.--Rebelheartous (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll take a peek when I have a mo. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Errol Crossan
Done, thanks for spotting it! GiantSnowman 16:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Crossan
You're welcome. But if one momentary loss of concentration really constitutes inadequacy, I think we all qualify... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)