User talk:Dweller

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.

Archives

2006 2007 2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Mail

Has been sent. A hui hou. --Ali'i 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

joining the ranks of the admins

1928-29 tour

Good work, Dweller. I would hope that one day all of these tours, certainly the old ones, will have their own articles. I do intend to look at the Bradman article again. It's just a busy time for me at the moment and I've not been on the site much in the last week. All the best. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already read the Bradman article a couple of times but I've quickly gone through it again to confirm my existing opinion of it. I've supported it at FAC. I also answered a question from someone wanting to know who Chris Harte is. Many of the points being raised at FAC are picky and I think you are being subject to an unwarranted delay here purely because of Bradman's stature in world sport. People seem to expect so much more than for, say, Adam Gilchrist because they are not looking at it in terms of an article but in terms of a sporting phenomenon. Be patient. Great work. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I've taken the liberty of doing a small amount of editing of the lead. Regarding the scorecards, I'm not sure that the number of overs that each bowler bowled is worth recording. I think it tends to make the scorecard less clear. If anyone wants that much detail, then they can always follow the link to the full scorecard. JH (talk page) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hey, hope you're alright. I finished my first run over the citations last night. I'll hopefully give it a second run tonight to check for consistent linking. By the way, I was sysop-ed on Simple English an hour ago, so if I catch you stalking me over there again, I'll block you...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Matthewedwards's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac 1 5--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was a nice offer...

"What a dickhead" Shows what we're working against. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman FAC

I am going to give more comments, but first I want to go through the article and fix any minor errors that I can find. I should be able to do this today, so expect another FAC visit from me either today or tomorrow. Giants2008 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you know I am still sore as you left the TH White quote out of it...(jut kidding) ... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struck most of the second round of comments and left a few notes. None of the unstruck comments are vital in terms of my supporting this. Expect a final round of comments soon, as I believe this is ready and want to move it along. Keep up the great work. Giants2008 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AFD of Maree Sole

Hi Dweller - thought I'd mention to you that I know Maree personally and can vouch for what's on the page. There should be no difficulty in finding web sources for a lot of it either.

However, I have to say that I too would think that userfying this makes more sense than having it as an article (she's not that notable). By way of comparison, a few years back I realised I was about as notable as a lot of people with articles on WP, so wrote a "non-article" on myself as a user subpage. Another editor, noticing my name in the text of several articles, "un-userfied" it by turning it into an article. I brought it to AfD myself, where the !vote went narrowly for re-userfication (about 5 !votes to 3, IIRC). The information covered in Maree's article covers her work in science fiction fandom, and that alone. Mine covers very similar work in fandom plus quite a bit of work in other fields where I'm of borderline notability (published writer, artist with several solo exhibitions, television appearances, etc). If my article is right on the cusp of notability, Maree's falls below that level by some way, despite her sterling work in fandom. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurling AFD

Hey dude. Hope you're alright, send me a mail or something. I've made a contribution in the aforementioned AFD, don't worry too much about your "muddled" thoughts... happens to the best of us! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables can be overdone in my opinion. There is an argument that it could be considered trivia, either as a bullet list or a table, and like we had to do for the stats bit for ITFC and NCFC, writing out as prose is probably a better solution than either list or table.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see the advantage of tabulating it. So I guess we should leave it as is? After all, it's only a lone voice in the wilderness who's making a point about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... how we doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I noticed a while ago was a request to add "registration required" for cricinfo links which, while it's ok, I think it would overwhelm the ref's because there are so many uses of cricinfo... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note at the top of the section for Cricinfo. As for Buc's ordering issue, the order in which fields are place is determined by the template, not by the order in which you type them into the template itself. I'll take another look but as far as I could tell there was nothing we could do about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my note not good enough for you now?! I've also investigated my "claim" of the cite web template behaviour and guess what? I was actually right. So I've explained that to Buc in the FAC. I found two rogue full stops in the citations for page numbers and they're gone. Is there anything else cite web wise you're worried about? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Well jolly good show. Do shout if you need anything further. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Buc but not much else to work on unless I missed something? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradman

TBH, I think it is featured quality now, "Bradmanesque" even. Most of my remaining issues with the article were discussed at PR and on the talk page and relate to his relationship with his team-mates. While it is well-covered in the talk page, the article is light on about the split between Bradman and the "Catholic clique". While not quite Ulster, Australia was split down the middle socially by religion and this was especially severe between the wars. O'Reilly despised Bradman as a person, "I am inclined to think that in a lot of ways Bradman did a tremendous amount of damage to Australian cricket." (Williams p. 153.) and coming from him it is hard to put that down to jealously or intimidation. However, that has been discussed to death and consensus was to keep what was there and have the detail in the sub-article and I am comfortable with that.

My other concern relates to the use of statistics. I used to be a huge stats fan and could quote averages etc. Nowadays, I find that their overuse sometimes makes reading an article like examining a spreadsheet (I do that sort of thing for a living). I would use less, but I know consensus is against that as well. Personally, while the Davis stuff is interesting, for me it would merit a sentence or two, not a paragraph and a table. The graph with the highest averages would work just as well if everyone below say, Sutcliffe was removed. However, I feel I have had my say at PR and on the talk page and raising them again at FAC would be akin to forum shopping. I have tossed up supporting the article—it clearly meets the Featured article criteria, even if I would do things slightly differently—but I am unsure that a seemingly "drive-by" support from a project member would be seen as constructive. One problem with a wide range of reviewers before FAC is that they sometime feel constrained from supporting. I am keeping an eye on the FAC and where I feel I can comment, I am. Good luck with the nomination, I am certain it will pass. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closures

They look pretty good to me. :) NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes

If you've got something for News and notes, leave a note on the tipline; if you're a neutral party or it's nothing controversial, you can, if you're interested, also write the paragraph about whatever you'd like covered, and I'll credit you in the byline. Ral315 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

Hey Dweller - sorry for the late response, I've had a lot on over the last week. All parties have accepted the mediation so I've just proposed you as the mentor. Could you keep an eye on it as well to see when it gets accepted? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to rock and roll if you are. One user hasn't agreed yet, but he hasn't edited for over three weeks, so we're safe to on without him. I'll keep a watch over the case if you want but if you have any problems you know where I am. We always do mediations on the RfM talk page, so in this casee it will be Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing - once you've sorted out exactly what needs to be mediated, it's often good to get an opening statement from everyone - just so you know where they stand on the issues at hand. It helps to clarify the dispute even further, and why it's reached that stage. You don't have to do this, but I'd certainly consider it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement

We're on the same page. You just thought it through further than I did. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Everyone thinks so. I'm indeed a fan of the Green, but a different one, which until recently was a source of copious tears. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Bradman stuff

Seen Buc's recent edits? I'm not sure. I know we're dead keen to cite things which could be questioned but he's removing references which are repeated. I'm certain we should keep references next to quotes, regardless of whether they're repeats or not, but as for the others, I'm not sure. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw your userpage. Hope you're ok. Just do a diff on the history from now to about half an hour ago, you'll see what Buc's up to if you have the chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stress not, I'll handle it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is fixed, and he's been informed. Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did it was because they are refs linked a few lines later with no other ref in between. It's something I've done many times for other FAC and no ones had a problem with before. Buc (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've pointed Buc to this guideline: "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment. The source of the material should always be clear. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken." - which doesn't preclude the current referencing in any way, shape or form. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]