Contents

User talk:Dweller: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:36, 20 November 2018

Please note: ♦I rarely edit at weekends. ♦This is one of Wikipedia's most edited pages. ♦I am sometimes mistaken for Doug Weller, Doug Coldwell and possibly even Doug. All great editors, but they're not me. I'm more Doug-less than Douglas. My username is explained on my userpage.

22 July 2024
Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book? Obituary: JamesR Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Dude, I know the score, but Mattythewhite has helpfully tagged the article with a few [citation needed]s, per this edit. If you ever find any real time and inclination here, we should resolve them I suppose, or else just let the tags rot the page to hell and see it demoted. I'll see what I can do but we're mid-family-pet-tragedy at the moment so time is short. In more ways than one. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your news. That's horrible. I'll see what I can do. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know now what will be the date of the first match in 2018 in the History of Norwich City F.C.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 August! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Norwich City F.C. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I recently undid your edit on the above page concerning his knighthood. I like you, initially thought there was an error on the year as he was on the 2015 birthday honours list but I checked out the sources and in fact the list is simply "PRIME MINISTER’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BIRTHDAY HONOURS" which the Queen approves but the knighthood itself is conferred at a later date as per [1] and Van's knighthood was conferred in 2016. It might be worth mentioning this in the Recognition and legacy section though. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis sorry for slow response. You did good here. Accuracy is king. I'll take another look to see if it's clear now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bots aside, I think you'll see from the history of those pages that few 'crats actually do all the paperwork... That said, Graham87 might be glad of a bot taking over! WJBscribe (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiWJBScribe. Thanks. Graham87, what do you think? I'm not technical, but it doesn't seem a particularly difficult task for a bot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! :-) It probably wouldn't be too hard (except that adding in notes would still require human intervention, I imagine), but that list isn't much of a bother for me, given the infrequency of resysopings, and the fat that I sometimes enjoy quasi-bot-like work (see my recent edits). I also maintain the former administrators list, which can be a bit more work. I had a discussion about this with MusikAnimal and Moe Epsilon last year. Graham87 10:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it in your extremely competent hands and try to help in a helpful not cackhanded way whenever relevant. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		From your work and talkpage entries, I fully think you deserve this. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I really like what you wrote. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I add my signature to the barnstar? It's been quite a long time since a previously unknown Wiki user has been so nice to me. Thank you! --Ecelan (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm blushing now! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to comment on reliability of sources on Talk:Rob Brezsny. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Greek construction involved isn't very precise in its meaning. The nominative singular name Ελεαζαρος is followed by a masculine nominative singular definite article, so what follows could be a description (Alexandros ho Megas) or an alternative name, etc. It's certainly not any ordinary or direct way of indicating "son of", but it should be kept in mind that Jerome claims to have had access to the lost Hebrew original text of 1 Maccabees... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, thanks. With the definite article there, could one reasonably translate it in a scholarly manner as "Elazar Avaran", rather than "the Avaran", "called Avaran" etc? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Αυαραν means, so it's hard to distinguish among subtleties of translation. I thought of the "Hauran" region, but apparently that's known as Auranitis in Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources think it's a nickname. Jerome clearly has a different tradition, but we know Elazar's dad was Matityahu, so unless Jerome thinks Matityahu also had a nickname or he thinks this is a different Elazar, he's either mistranslating his Hebrew text, or he has a defective one. I wonder if he had a Hebrew text translated from the Greek, rather than the original? That would make a lot of sense. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that I've scheduled History of Norwich City F.C. to appear on the main page as today's featured article on August 4, 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 4, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, thank you my friend. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... sarcasm or not? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would a new protection level, "Pending admin review", be feasible? An alternative to Full protection but similar to Pending changes, only requiring admin tools to approve. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued, Coffeeandcrumbs, under what circumstances would this be useful? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ERRORS is the best use for it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate. Instead of fully protecting the 5 or 6 sub-templates for the Main Page, we could use this to allow Extended confirmed users to make minor corrections. If anything could be controversial or is any where near substantial or significant, the admin could just decline and say: "Reverted pending admin change with no prejudice. Please discuss." We could cut reports at Errors to less than half.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Any talk page stalkers with a view? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of putting extra burden on administrators unless it's severely limited, such as for a handful of templates. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you had a question (When I was checking the history on that page) on why they couldn't just use the pole as a lechi as is often done. One thing with an eruv wire is that is has to be at the top of the lechi. In many cases the wires on the telephone pole cross in a T with the pole so it's not on top, and putting something on the top of the pole would be too high so a shorter lechi is used adjacent to the telephone pole. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about something that you as a bureaucrat might be able to explain to me.

I ran across the account Mohamed Ouda today after noticing he had re-created (not moved) a rejected draft in main space. I moved it back, then looked at his contributions.... and it's full of user account renamings. Mohamed Ouda has been here since 2008, he has less than 500 edits on en-wiki, and no user rights (other than autoconfirmed), although his talk page says he's an admin on the Arabic Wikipedia. I thought only bureaucrats could rename accounts. Can anybody do it? Could I as an admin rename accounts? Or is he doing something he shouldn't be doing? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) Anachronist, Mohamed Ouda is a global renamer, see m:Global renamers for more information. You are about four years out of the loop, my friend. Alex Shih (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: I kinda figured I was missing something. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... for improving article quality in July! Three days to the game ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's today that we watch the history of Norwich City F.C.! Thank you, and The Rambling Man and all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... for improving in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and in October! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow bureaucrats, in regards to a current RfA that has met its time, I would like your assistance in judging the community consensus presented in the discussion at Jbhunley's RfA. Your input would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		In the last 17 days alone, we've identified and fixed more than 100 errors at the ALL NEW TRM ERRORS page!! Thanks so much for your diligence and your dedication to ensuring our readers get the best possible experience from Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That halo suits me very nicely, thanks. The tail is a bit inconvenient when sitting. Especially on the bog. Glad you think I'm horny. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE - this comment (I don't want to derail the AE to the side topic of ARBPIA arcana) - WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 applies to all users, not just IPs - users that are not WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED may not edit ARBPIA relate page - some of these are ECP-protected (the "hotter" ones), some aren't (and at times - e.g. Acid throwing#Middle East - it is a sub part of the page). As for the user in question - they edited two talk pages (and one page) of articles that I had watch listed. I was concerned by the initial soap boxing (which was on a talk page). When they edited the second article (which at the time was not ECP protected) - I informed them of the applicability of the ARBPIA3#500/30 rule to their edits With most users a polite note (such as this, which I hope is polite enough) suffices. In this case - I received a series of personal attack in exchange and they continued editing the page.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've identified a glitchy bit of Arbcom drafting and posted about it at the enforcement page. As for the user's behaviour, I think I've made it clear that my view is that his response was totally unaccaptable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2] it was worse before. I raised the issue and proposed the current version. What I do think we might want to do is instead of writing who is prohibited from editing, we might want to write who is allowed to edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying affirmatively that it is only WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED users with accounts (which can be rescinded, and has been, in some cases of EC gaming) would be better (and in parenthesis, one could say EC is 500/30).Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good ideas. Anything that's clear. Especially for newbies. We need to remember that ARBPIA is exactly the kind of thing a newbie might be attracted into editing by. Something they feel passionate about and is relevant to them. What we need to do is harness that passion, rather than stoke or frustrate it. We're not exactly rich with an influx of new editors. And even if we were, well, I just like the idea of welcoming and developing new Wikipedians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would change:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

to

In order to edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict an editor must be registered and have more than 30 days tenure and have more than 500 edits

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well make it official. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3

Hi, I can't tell if my comment was accepted or not. Pinging @Doug Weller:. The version "Registered accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days tenure are also prohibited." is wrong. Literally it says that to be prohibited you need to have both less than 500 edits and also less than 30 days. But in fact either of those things alone makes you prohibited. I suggest that it would be less liable to misreading if worded with fewer negatives: "Registered accounts are only permitted if they have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." Cheers. Zero^talk 23:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I agree, I'll see if I can get it changed. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the fact that it's at ARCA, I've supported your wording there. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I missed these messages. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dweller,

A lot has happened since last we connected. I've taken on curation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, and participation in that project has grown to nearly 100 users, including several programmers and about 15 admins. We've been working on a new portal design, and I was wondering if you would take a look at it. Please check out Portal:Lithuania, click on the various < and > symbols, and let me know what you think.    — The Transhumanist   12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand portals. What are they for? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Dweller a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!Kpgjhpjm 02:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, each Cup, we typically don't update the score each and every hole, and it is messy and requires too much. Typically we wait until the match is over. Also, proper wording was taken out by that editor who never edits golf and had little or no understanding of the correct terminology. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you've confused me with someone else. I've not added any scores. Just a useful template. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified. I was explaining why I was reversing that other editor's edits. I figured that's why you added the template. Sorry about that. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. When these live events take place you can get people rushing to edit and tempers can fray, so it's a useful template. And for the readers, they should know that when they see a score, we're not a news site. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started expanding the article, based on the book and gathering other sources from the info contained therein. Would appreciate some ad hoc copyediting in my wake... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can rustle some of that up for you. So long as I don't have an unfortunate defecating incident, like our hero managed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done pretty much most of the Ipswich career section now. Needs proper job copyediting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, check the article. I think you added it???? We should be told. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source. I think it's right in the article now. I remember fixing it - I think it was right in one place and wrong in one, at one point, probably when you did the nom! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the rumours are to be believed, I think we have our next joint venture.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that like the man himself, his biog will be unstable for a long time. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think 250 edits to it in the past 2.5 years is pretty stable...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of material lifted from Kevin Beattie's autobiography. Just wondering what permission you have to use this?

Don't worry, covering this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the schedule? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're nearly there I think. I can't remember what's outstanding - finding it difficult to find more than trivial amounts of time onwiki atm. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]