→Blunders are too easy here.: new section |
m Signing comment by JayEB - "→Blunders are too easy here.: new section" |
||
Line 773: | Line 773: | ||
UPDATE: Before I posted this from preview, I noticed that the<br /> |
UPDATE: Before I posted this from preview, I noticed that the<br /> |
||
edit box had secretly emptied. So one precaution is to not post<br /> |
edit box had secretly emptied. So one precaution is to not post<br /> |
||
after a preview. This goes to press without a preview .... <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JayEB|JayEB]] ([[User talk:JayEB|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JayEB|contribs]]) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
after a preview. This goes to press without a preview .... |
Revision as of 18:18, 2 November 2011
![]() |
---|
14 August 2024 |
|
Nick Cohen
Any chance you can put back the Alcohol section, especially the PI quote? It's relevant to his standing as a journalist and unoffensive - best - Gavinturner (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Dweller, thanks for your good work on Nick Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 16:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Belated thanks! --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Your question
You must be mistaken regarding your question here; I've never pursued an RFA in the past. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ha, yes, I just noticed before heading here. It's your username - made it look like it's your [at least] fifth RfA... Actually, it might be worth you pointing out in your nomination that this is your first RfA, although do so carefully, because most RfA !voters aren't as stupid as I've just been. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite alright; it happens to even the best of us! Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Crat mailing list
Welcome to the team. I name-dropped you on BN. There's a sparsely-used mailing list - it's almost exclusively for RTV stuff that can't be discussed onwiki for privacy reasons. If you'd like to join it, you're welcome, but there's no compulsion. Other Crats have, in the past, opted not to, and there's enough of us on there (see the chart on WP:CRAT) to handle the meagre amount of traffic. Up to you. --Dweller (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually wondering about that; I think I would like to sign up, just in case I need it for anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK... click here! --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Dweller. I've been quite busy the past week, and I haven't had a chance to respond until now. I don't need mailing list access, but thanks for the welcome. :) Maxim(talk) 02:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Domain slamming
Gonna be logging off here shortly, could you please watch this page? Vandalism is persisting at the moment. Calabe1992 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BOTCH
Wikipedia:BOTCH, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BOTCH and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BOTCH during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for renaming
On en.wiki is user, which uses my nick (User:Marcelus, my user page on polish wikipedia: pl:Wikipedysta:Marcelus). He so far, has not done any edit. Could you change his username, so i will can create a unified login and start to editing?79.163.41.94 (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please visit WP:CHU/SUL --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CHU/SUL is closed; he would need to visit WP:USURP. –xenotalk 12:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Aggers
Learning from Gunny, don't forget to look at what links to Aggers. The Bee Gees?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cool. "On 7 September 2009, Robin Gibb disclosed to Jonathan Agnew that he had been in touch with Barry Gibb and that they had agreed that the Bee Gees would re-form and "perform again".[21]" --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium is perhaps more pertinent... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Current ref 37 don't link to naaaarfin boi. What was it supposed to link to? Otherwise, all other ref formats sorted (until FAC where people tell me I'm shit at that too...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note, have you seen Graham Gooch's article? Wow. Real poor. Perhaps we can look at his next? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your invitation to participate in the development of the Jonathan Agnew article. I shall be delighted to do so. Unfortunately I am rather pressed for time at the moment, but, if you let me know when you are satisfied with the content of the article, I will try to find time to copyedit it again. Old Father Time (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium is perhaps more pertinent... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Current ref 27 don't link to naarfin boi. See if you can get to the page in two steps rather than one, i.e. search on Agnew then select the JP Agnew from there, that might work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Bah and phooey. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can't do it. Any ideas? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- What search results are you trying to get? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Is this the sort of thing you were after? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying to ref his early season form in 1985 being consistently good (prompting the call up to the England side) but when I specify a season, the oracle gives a generic url. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can't do it. Any ideas? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop by the discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominate at WP:TFL
Hello boss. How's about nominating our old chestnut (and possibly our most "universal" work) England national football team manager for WP:TFL? Might need some dead links fixing and checking that Fabio's stats are up to date, but other than that it should be good to go....? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Eh? It's an FA, not a FL! --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, bugger, I forgot that. It was supposed to be list and then got out of control, didn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair to us (!), I think we envisioned it as a list, but then found that the explanatory text was getting so big (and with so much left to say) that it was more appropriate to make it an FA. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Still a brilliant article though! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair to us (!), I think we envisioned it as a list, but then found that the explanatory text was getting so big (and with so much left to say) that it was more appropriate to make it an FA. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, bugger, I forgot that. It was supposed to be list and then got out of control, didn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
You commented on a previous FAC for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Would you mind checking in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Texas Chain Saw Massacre/archive6 to see whether your previous concerns have been addressed? Ucucha (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
anxious and worried
I am anxious and worried about the business you tried to help me with. I wonder, should I just forget everything and walk away? Because following up stuff could get me into more trouble. In the large view, Wikipedia needs editors who can sort out difficult subjects. Niklas said it was a waste (ditching me from the Swedish WP) But a sensible strategy would be to pick up my things and go and put the research I have done into some article under my own name and retain my copyright to get rid of bother and frustration. This is an exchange I had recently RPSM (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
and this: Your message at Talk:GameOnJag fick ett meddelande på min svenska diskussionssida att du kontaktat GameOn, och jag har läst vad du skrivit på hans diskussionssida här. Jag uppskattar att du tar dig tid att gå tillbaka och reda ut de problem som har varit. Tack för omtanken. Ursäkten är så klart accepterad.Sjö (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC) translation: I received a message on my Swedish talk page that you contacted GameOn, and I read what you wrote on his talk page here. I appreciate that you took the time to go back and sort out the problems that arose. Thank you for being so considerate. Your apology, is, of course accepted. Sjö (talk)RPSM (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Respect your block there. Work well here, collaborating with others, discussing sensibly. Good material here can always be translated into Swedish. Why be anxious and worried? This is supposed to be a hobby. If you don't like Wikipedia, no-one is forcing you to be here... find something else you enjoy. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- worried that things spin out of control. I added something here:[2].RPSM (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- And now, this: Am I creating difficulties for myself by overreacting and being aggressive, or is it best to get it off my chest as I did? RPSM (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- On Sjö's talk page (last edit) [4] he says he has been deeply emotionally affected by the edit conflict about Jewish and Muslim slaughtering (banned in Sweden in the 1930s because of influence from Hitler Germany) and he would feel better if I kept away and did not ever contact him. He is responsible for requesting a block for me on Swedish Wikipedia. His psychological wellbeing is affected by me having any contact whatsoever with him. My block on Swedish WP seems to be motivated by emotional considerations. RPSM (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you stand to gain by pursuing this editor for a retraction. All you're doing is making yourself look bad. You're damaging his "psychological wellbeing" more by hounding him here. Just drop it. Your ban on Swedish Wikipedia is not entirely because of him and if he gave in and apologised fulsomely, you wouldn't be welcomed back there tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
ygm ;)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Egg Centric 23:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High
, while for quality the scale goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Request
Hi.i am user:miladkhoshtip98 . 10 days ago i sent a email for you (Ombudsman commission).unfortunately i didn't receive any result Until Now and i am waiting for it yet.would you mind considering my request and inform the result sooner? i want continue my activities in fa.wiki and i am in Waiting really. thanks--212.95.129.96 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RE: Mentorship of TT
Dweller, I didn't want to post this on the AN page, but I saw you'd written that you'd failed with your mentorship with TT. I disagree, you didn't fail. TT failed to listen to you. There's a big difference. You made a reasonable request and he refused it. It's on him now. Thanks for making the attempt! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the supportive comments. They mean a lot. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I can only second, third and fourth Kosh's words. I have been a around TT's WP:DRAMA for years now - sometimes from afar and sometimes closer - and I can only admire your AGF attempt to help. TT has pushed beyond the edges of WP:NOTTHERAPY for a long time and the only mentor that he would approve of is one that said that all his editing is peachy keen. The only other thing I can say is keep up your good work here and there aren't enough barnstars available to give to you for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 07:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto from me too. Sad to see folks you get on with go down in flames. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I can only second, third and fourth Kosh's words. I have been a around TT's WP:DRAMA for years now - sometimes from afar and sometimes closer - and I can only admire your AGF attempt to help. TT has pushed beyond the edges of WP:NOTTHERAPY for a long time and the only mentor that he would approve of is one that said that all his editing is peachy keen. The only other thing I can say is keep up your good work here and there aren't enough barnstars available to give to you for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 07:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Dweller, just thought I drop by and leave this to cheer you up. Allow me, you're like Morpheus from the Matrix: "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it." Unfortunately, that was his last chance as I paraphrased him again: "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill -- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill -- you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
IE8 Funkiness
On WP:VPT you reported some strange behavior from IE8. We're also getting reports of IE8 crashing. Could you leave a comment on the bug describing your problem? — ☠MarkAHershberger☣ 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to provide more info, but I think you've already captured there the limit of my knowledge... other than it's still happening. And it's really, really annoying. --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Hopefully this will energize you to do even more amazing stuff on here. =) Thanks for everything you do, Dweller! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC) |
Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page, or if you can't, just send them a {{talkback}} and reply here. Thanks.
Very cute sarcasm.
Whatever. --98.221.192.218 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd happily accept the praise, but I don't know which of my 40,000 edits you're referring to. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High
, while for quality the scale goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Muhammad Images
Hi Dweller, I wrote this on the ArbCom Pending Case:
- Dweller, please, by all means, jump into our crippled RfC proposal attempt. I do ask that you do not take my word for the true motivations (as noted above (on the ArbCom page)) behind attempts at derailing it though, and instead spend the time reading up on all the conversations and looking into the back-history.
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dweller! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
A lot of quacking going on again
Thanks, Dweller. Typically, Daft has made a colossal error when moving a match from 1728 to 1729 on the basis of what he has read in that book. The 1729 fixture was a repeat of the 1728 one and they are both in the book. What can you do, eh? ----Jack | talk page 16:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Assistance in closing RM discussion
It's been suggested, at the bottom of the page of this discussion, that I "…approach a respected Wikipedia bureaucrat, and have said ‘crat assign a closing admin to this, who should be entrusted with carefully parsing the above arguments to see which side of the debate is best grounded in Wikipedia’s policies." On the assumption that you are such a respected individual, I wonder if you might undertake to do so to see about arranging closure of this RM discussion (which encompasses all topics on the talk page) (as requested by another user on 2011-10-21 [last Friday]). Thx — Who R you? Talk 03:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Replied at Talk:Marek Židlický --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Dweller; Thank you for your time and attention on this. I'll attempt to find any double-redirects and take care of them. If you'd like, I can attempt to clean-up the formatting issues created by the close template substitutions, but I don't really think it's too much of an issue. But, if you'd like, I'm sure I could figure out how to fix it and I'll leave it to you to LMK if it's needed; otherwise I'll assume that, as an archive, formatting as such is relatively unimportant and meanwhile I'll look at the issue of double-redirects. Have a great weekend! — Who R you? Talk 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Dweller. With regard to the way you used a common sense approach there and explained your reasoning in plain-speak: is that allowed on Wikipedia?? Ballsy, man. This must be a no-B.S. zone. Greg L (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I fixed (∆ edit, here ), the close-out template at Talk:Marek Zidlicky. The end of the div had to be moved to the bottom. Greg L (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
This was, while done in good faith, an inappropriate way to close a hotly debated RM on an issue where the community has not formed a consensus. Regarding the circumstances, you were contacted by the most vocal participant in the discussion (who had previously canvassed five others from his "side" to comment). Having been put in a position of a special admin needed to save Wikipedia from policy being ignored, you did not arrive to the discussion like RM regulars. As debates involving diacritics tend to be contentious, they are usually closed by the regulars who know this dispute inside out. So, why did you not leave the discussion to be closed by someone experienced in that area of the project and not hand-picked by an involved user?
Regarding your closure, you cite COMMONNAME, like the supporters, but the move is not supported by this policy but by your interpretation of it; the stretching of this principle to always cover the most common spelling (includes diacritics, capitalization, hyphens/dashes...) of the common name is not supported by consensus and was in the slight minority in the recent RFC. You also did not respond to the 5P concerns (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and incorporates elements of other reference works), the NOTBURO argument (actual practice on Czech people) or to the BLP point of getting the article right (well-sourced unencyclopedic material is rejected from BLPs all the time). Furthermore, people usually want their name spelled correctly and, as this is supported in proper English and the practice by other encyclopedias, there is seemingly very little reason not to do so. It is also easy to demonstrate, as you seem to have guessed, that your closure differs dramatically from those of others. In my opinion, by claiming that the other five admins who participated in the discussion "argued passionately" but don't know policy, you seem to have accepted the super admin position. Prolog (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is both surprising and unsettling to see an Admin arguing on the User talk page of the Admin/Bureaucrat who did nothing more than close a discussion based upon their reading of the discussion. If you'd like to continue arguing this decided matter, which I am fully prepared to do, please do so by creating a new section on the talk page where the rest of this discussion took place. I am, and no doubt everyone else involved (including the closer) is, still watching the page. Please do not privately badger an Admin, or anyone else, on or off of their talk page! I'll be watching for you to [[Talk:Marek Zidlicky|Template:Bigbold]]. Any continuation of this matter on this talk page Prolog and I will immediately proceed to ANI regarding your inappropriate actions here. — Who R you? Talk 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- My comment was directed at Dweller, and you are clearly unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works. Prolog (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, you may complain to Dweller all you please on his own talk page until he asks you to go fly a kite and stay away from his talk page. But badgering those in power—particularly in a collaborative writing environment where everyone is a volunteer trying to do their best—is seldom super-wise. Now…
Since the central tenet of your complaint doesn’t appear to be that Dweller has some sort of serious personality disorder or chronic B.O. (topics that ought to be addressed on individuals’ talk pages) and since the bone you have to pick is over the decision he made when closing the RfC, and since much of your above complaint regarding the slings and arrows of great misfortune pertains to details of the proper use of diacritics with regard to Czech individuals in general, and Marek Zidlicky in particular, the proper way to continue this discussion is to continue it over there, where editors who take an interest in these sort of issues have a better opportunity to see and participate; the sunshine of public scrutiny helps to sanitize weak and infected arguments. Greg L (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, you may complain to Dweller all you please on his own talk page until he asks you to go fly a kite and stay away from his talk page. But badgering those in power—particularly in a collaborative writing environment where everyone is a volunteer trying to do their best—is seldom super-wise. Now…
- My comment was directed at Dweller, and you are clearly unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works. Prolog (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Prolog. Apologies for not replying yesterday - I didn't want to respond to your post in a heated manner so thought waiting a day might help.
I'm glad you appreciate my "good faith" but the charge of "inappropriate" closure is rather shocking. If you merely disagreed with the way I called the consensus, that'd be fine. I accepted in my close that with such a close vote-count there would be people who disagreed, but "inappropriate"? You seem to be arguing that only a small cabal of admins should be permitted to close these requests - and that I totally disagree with. You also seem to be arguing it was inappropriate of me to close it because one of the participants to the debate invited me to close it, as if that would somehow have skewed my opinion. That's ridiculous and insulting in equal measure.
I'd happily have engaged with you on detailed discussion of the close, here or at the article talk, but frankly, the way you set up the discussion makes it seem pointless: fundamentally you believe my action was inappropriate, so the detail is a waste of time. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That was quick
I was just drafting something for WP:ANI and here you are before I've even finished it! Thanks again, Dweller, but watch out because you'll be on his list now. ----Jack | talk page 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:RD/MA question -- 10^0
Hi Dweller. Be sure that take a peek back at your question on the maths ref desk, as there is some concern there that you might have left with a misunderstanding, as evidenced by your in reality, the expression is meaningless as a reflection of reality remark, which is quite incorrect. Also, let me know if you dabble in any programming, as if you do then I will point out a correlation between initializing variables and empty sums and products. Best regards, -- 110.49.227.102 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Wow, we really are nerds over there.
This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Blunders are too easy here.
--JayEB (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A new account should be guided to a one-page tutorial, and the new user
should be required to click a box indicating that they understand that
one-page tutorial (with blunder avoidance tips).
It's actually not so easy to find the tutorial section on your own,
and I am still-living proof that you can break a lot of expensive glassware
with only the best intentions. I don't want to see the Logarithm article
disappear before my eyes, but that's what I caused.
I did not recognize that revising after a preview is dangerous, in that IF the
editing box has secretly emptied, then that's what will show on the article.
I tested this in sandbox today. I changed my first preview, and the new preview
was fine.
But though a second preview looked good, the edit box had secretly emptied,
and that "empty space" appeared on the article. And I could not undo that.
Maybe there should be a 922 button for blunder assistance.
But I need more tutorial time.
UPDATE: Before I posted this from preview, I noticed that the
edit box had secretly emptied. So one precaution is to not post
after a preview. This goes to press without a preview .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayEB (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)