User talk:Dweller/Archive 25

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Benson watch

The fellow is back I think. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He popped up again! So has my photo poll. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Frederic Colier

Hello, thank you for your message regarding possibly deleting my article. The warning is filled with possible options and I am not sure which one you would like me to improve. More info in the bio section? More external links? I am new to Wiki and have been unable to figure out how to cross-reference a name, a place placed in foreign wiki pages. Please clarify if possible. Odersel62 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

I see that you recently renamed B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 (talk · contribs) as Renamed user 19 (talk · contribs). If one looks at the contributions for both "accounts", as linked in the preceding sentence, one finds that the user's contributions between 14:57, August 30, 2007 (the point at which the contribution history of B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 appears to begin), and 16:52, July 8, 2008 (the point at which the contribution history of Renamed user 19 appears to end), are all mixed up, with some being recorded in one name's history and others being recorded in the other name's history. (The user's contributions after the period specified above all seem to be in the B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 history, and those before the period all seem to be in the Renamed user 19 history.) Do you know the reason for this? Is there any way to get the user's contributions—before, during, and after the indicated period—consolidated into a single edit history? Deor (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal RfA thank-you spam

SoWhy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
I am against that kind of spam but I really want to thank you for your trust in nominating me for adminship. Now that I passed, I hope I can live up to it :-) SoWhy 07:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Questions and comments regarding original research in the Battle of Thermopylae

First you say I am reading into the text; Of course I am reading the text, and the text tells me 10,000 Persian Immortals+20,000 Median and Cissian cavalry+50,000 other infantry fought in a course of three days, and that the later 40,000 of Herodotus were recycled troops that sorounded the Greeks on the fourth day of the battle. Which means not to add an extra 40,000. And do not forget, I checked Herodotus' invasion forces numbers for the Persians, and I found that I can extract Ctesias numbers out of Herodotus' numbers too, further proving that his numbers are not probable, but possible, even if compared to Herodotus.

Second, that I am using OR; The numbers Ctesias gives me are not symbols that I have to be an expert to crack. They are plain old numbers, I am putting what he is telling me, how is that my research, is a mystery you have given me. And if you read the original research article it says, there is fine line between new classification and original research. I am a educated-theoritical Wikipedian user, and I might be using a new classification method, not the original research you accuse me of.

Third, that it is POV; It would be my point of view to include only Ctesias numbers, thats if other historians said how many fought, but the problem here is NO other historian than Ctesias says how many fought. I think you have a problem differenciating between what invasion force and battle force means, Ctesias himself says 800,000 INVADED Greece, but 80,000 FOUGHT at Thermopylae. Herodotus says 2.5-5.0 million INVADED Greece, but other than his recycled 40,000, he does not say how many FOUGHT. Furthermore, you said something about historians accepting smaller numbers because the battlefield was a little small, okay then, Ctesias numbers are then closest to reality, please think outside of the box. The two paragraphs below have nothing to do with what is above, but are interesting to read.

THE FIRST THEORY, I decided to see if I take the numbers of Herodotus, and take one zero from them, and see what happens. Then I added the numbers all over again, and came to an astonishing find, about 750,000! So this means if Herodotus mistaked the Persian words of tens and hundreds while copying his histories down on paper, that would mean he made a mistake by 10 times, and what is more interesting is that Ctesias as you know says 800,000 invaded so 750,000 and 800,000 are pretty close, NOTE {What I just said here was said by a historian of which his name now escapes me, and his name is on the Thermopylae article, so do not accuse me of this theory, I could not have even thought it up}.

THE SECOND THEORY, anyways, could you tell me what it is that your not joining in, and I am sorry if I misqouted you, but anyways just to know, and I read this in other places, that some historians think that Phiotus that copied the work of Ctesias, did it wrongly, and which has led to Ctesias being critized for that. I now for a fact know that 75% of the Herodotus works and Ctesias works agree with each other, nevertheless, they were good historians, but not the best. I am also open to the fact that they were bad historians, but that seem a little unlikely because most of they said is confirmed by others and archaeologists. Which I think that shows that their works were changed by others as time went on, which by now shows them as not good historians, when in fact they might have been. This theory is recently being considered by historians in the field.

So before reading this, reveiw the message (except the last two paragraphs) as you can see here, on closer examination there should be no dispute between us, and I am sorry if I sound harsh in some places. I type fast and fast things just come out. But, I want to thank you for reading such a long message, and coment me back, I know you think its ironic, but do not be afraid to unleash your rath on me, so I wish you the best, and goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Your right, I am sorry I put too much information at one time. I just wanted to present all my message in one place. We know the battles lasted three days, (both Herodotus and Ctesias say the battle lasted three days) and Ctesias gives us the numbers for each day, but it is not a mystery how many days the battle was fought, so do not say what if the battle took place 10 days, saying that is original research my friend. In all it adds up to ~80,000, and that is if we add them all up, but I am not saying that we should add them all up. Then also, what puzzles me is that for example, Herodotus says on the second day of Plataea or Artemisium this many troops or ships fought, THEN Wikipedian users take the first day and second day and add them up to get the TOTAL amount of troops or ships, SO why can not WE do that with Thermopylae? And trust me, if you ask almost every historian that "would Xerxes put in more troops if it lasted more days?" The answer is YES, of course. Here is why, logostic and migrational evidence for the population size of the Persian Empire at its greatest extent suggests that Herodotus invasion force would be correct if it were the reserve force too, at the time there were 50,000,000 citizens in the empire, 1 of 5 men of 20 to 50 years old were required to be in the reserves (I personally know this from reading books about it on the subject of which you asked me) which for any reason might have become active troops. And that would mean, there was anywere from 5-10,000,000 reserves in the empire, I am talking about every stationed guard, general, seaman, whatever, so he could have and would have put more troops, why not. So as you can see I have no agenda in lowering the size of the Persian army, in fact I believe, even if you read the older and somewhat mythical accounts of world conquerors such as the Egyptian Sesostros, the Scythian Astocordes, and the Assyrian Semiramis, their armies were said to have been in the millions, even check out the Indian epics, so it is highly possible these numbers were fact. And that the number million was known as far back as Egyptian times, as there are 2.5 million limestone blocks in the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, each weighing 2.5 tons! So if you look on the article, I did NOT say 80,000 troops, I broke it down to in the way Ctesias presents it to us, therefore making my edit NOT original research. okay, yah, the end, eh.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Your offer

... intrigued me. At any point that you have time, I'd appreciate your scrutiny as to whether I have what it takes. I've been active since last November, although I registered this account last April, and had a few anon edits prior to that. I have a low edit count (bit over 3000), little/no independent article writing. What I do have is a lot (proportionately) of AfD participation. I enjoy working in that area, and if I had the tools that is where I'd use them. No civility issues at all, never been blocked or warned - well, I was erroneously blocked as a vandalism-only account, but immediately was unblocked and the admin apologized for the error. Looking back, it looks like we crossed paths on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maree Sole, I'm not sure whether we've interacted much otherwise. So, at your convenience I'd be interested in your candid assessment. Thanks in advance, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of pedantry

We actually only promoted 6 admins last month, not 7. The table at WP:CRATSTATS includes bureaucrat promotions, so Bibliomaniac is included in the 7... WJBscribe (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that makes it 14% worse... I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the lowest number of admins promoted in a single month since April 2003. WJBscribe (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

...and I suspect admins in April 2003 needed half a dozen supports to get the mop... These are... "interesting times" for Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic Colier

It has begun. I am not the great writer for biographies of living persons, but I have at so far least been able to source the assertions of notability of his being a filmmaker, playwright, novelist and musician. I'll do more and expand a bit. Apparently his musical career was cut short by some accident and he turned to other artistic outlets. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to take a look at how it currently sits. I have done a rewrite and expansion per MOS, sourced as much as I dare, added some nice externals. There was more on his production company's website about him, but I stayed away from it as a self-published source... even though the information was put on that site by staffers... I did not have to use it. Opinions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Iain Dowie Off spin Leg spin Battle of Cunaxa Olympic Village The Cricket Show Ryan Jarvis To Kwa Wan Derek Underwood The Cricketer Xiphos Alf Ramsey Johan Boskamp Left-arm orthodox spin C. W. Alcock The Fury (film) Belinda Clark Fo Tan Michael Jonathon Smith

Cleanup Tony Adams (footballer) Clive Rice Bill Edrich Merge Dunblane massacre Luton 5-alpha-reductase deficiency Add Sources Dorothy Lyman Sidney Green Gary Lineker Wikify Twenty20 West Bromwich Dartmouth Cricket Club Spread betting Expand Cricketer Steam Detectives Women's cricket

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Hi Dweller. Sometime back I'd suggested you and The Rambling Man initiate an RFC on Sarumio if you think the concerns warrant a sanction. Have those concerns been resolved for now? Or has his behaviour continued? If they haven't been resolved still, then this week is the time when I can look into it and ask questions, leaving my view up next week. Anyway, let me know how it all goes. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked him to have a look here so if he can comment, then that'll be good.

I don't want to see the same problems encountered by another set of editors in that area, nor do I like to see editors feeling they have to leave an area because of a problem editor. So that brings me to the question of whether you'd mind having a look to see what changes have occurred since your departure from that area, and whether you'd like to edit in that area again in the future? Of course, if you don't want to return to that area of editing regardless, I'll understand, but I'd like to be clear about your position. :) Cheers again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio has certainly edited less and with more respect to others since I reminded him that using sock puppets to avoid scrutiny was unacceptable. He is still brusque (as Dweller pointed out, his response to the RFC was hardly appropriate) but his propensity for mass edits seems to have died down. I'd like to see the RFC run through its due course however, since it's not just Dweller and I who have found his editing style unaccetpable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NB There's a note at the RfC that it's likely to be closed in the next couple of days. It's a shame, but not surprising, that the other WP:FOOTY users discomforted by Sarumio have not chosen to comment. I'll assume that they're nobly avoiding conflict. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a move to leave it open for a week, unless there are further comments. Although you shouldn't canvass, if you feel other users can certify the basis of the dispute, then there's no harm in sending friendly notices as it may help outsiders forming a view on this dispute. Again, I do require diffs (if possible) so my view can be quite specific like the one I made recently at Davegnz's RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've made a small change to the RfC page. I'm going to think through what, if anything, I'd like to do further, but I wondered if you a wise course of action would be for you, as a neutral party, to consider dropping a line at the talk page of the parties mentioned in the text at the RfC page? --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I'll let them know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I should've asked you also; do you think it would stretch just to football related articles now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Want to be an admin?

I read your message at WT:RFA. My answer would be yes, I would like to become an administrator someday. Alex (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I read your message as well and have to agree that we need more quality candidates putting themselves forward. As such, I've prepared a nomination statement for someone I first nominated about half a year ago. I was wondering if you might like to provide a co-nomination statement? –xeno (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the RfA talkpage..

..I'd be interested in becoming an admin, and i'm sure with three previous RfA's I'd count under "unusual" noms. I've improved a lot since my last one; i've taken part in more article work, and i've generally stopped acting like an immature smug jackass. If you have the time i'd love for you to be able to look over my record and nominate me. Ironholds 15:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C

He's not an unusual RfA candidate but after 100K edits and over 2 years on this project its about time someone forces him to have the mop and bucket in his hands. Many, many people have offered to nom him and for the sake of the project its about time. He has been weary of running again because of the type of opposes in his past 2 RfA's (the last was one and a half years ago!) but you would think people would have realised its the right thing to do since then. Maybe you can come up with something to force him to change his mind, it looks like only Jimbo can force him to run at the moment :) Best 211.30.12.197 (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw your WT:RFA note too (didn't we all) and of this is the only person (out of those that have come forward) who I would support without question. Giggy (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An "Unusual", I guess

I saw your comments on the RFA talkpage, and was wondering if you could just take a look if I would be possible. I went through 4 unsuccessful RFAs (see my previous username, Stormtracker94), and one rejected nomination, and finally gave up on it for a while. After that RFA, it finally hit me after nearly a year on Wikipedia. Admins are just maintenance users, not people that rule the place like a dictator! So I started thinking differently... I thought of how I could help the website more through an RFA. I took this time to improve on discussion, XFDs, and other things on my last RFA. I have much more experience with admin areas, and have become a batter article writer. So anyways, it has been about 7 months since my last RFA, and I was wondering if I had improved and was ready for a nom by you or somebody else. RedThunder 12:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: My WP:ER page

I just created my own WP:ER page just in time for you to pick it up this week or next week. Alex (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened before I got banned: [2] and [3]. Alex (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alex_101

I have replied on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Readable_prose

The last suggestion will fix it for sure. The reason the last one didn't work was because there the text I suggested you search for appears twice in your monobook, and I meant to say the second one. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

Thanks for your nomination. Although I wonder if I might not regret it later, I accept. No matter how this goes, I really appreciate you taking the time to evaluate and consider me. I believe I can work on this thing without taking it live; if it's all right with you I'd like to drop you a note before I do. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I've set up the page, and will go live with it in morning so I can be available for questions. I'll update the time as you mentioned. Thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And now it's live. :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 10:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Your sig

It's not confusing if you click the link(s). ;) There is no specific reason for it, other than at some point I decided it best to be on a first-name-basis with others. "Yllosubmarine" is also confusing for some to spell. I've been signing this way for more than two years and thought nothing of it. María (habla conmigo) 14:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but unless it goes against signature guidelines or what not, I think I'll stay as I am. I appreciate the offer, though! María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly Hatnote

Thanks for informing me that the cricket Bill O'Reilly was also a commentator. I would prefer to keep the hatnotes gone, and move Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to a better name that fits only the US commentator and not the other guy. Bill O'Reilly (commentator) could then be redirected to Bill O'Reilly. What do you think? I hate unnecessary hatnotes. Mike R (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Dweller, I noticed that you just contacted somebody about running for admin. Yes, that person ran previously, and it turned pretty ugly. He contacted me a few weeks ago and asked me to look him over, and I advised waiting. In his last RfA he had been tagged with some characterizations and some of his edits since then will feed into those characterizations. Personally, I think he SHOULD be an admin, but I don't think he'd pass right now. Hopefully you know who I am referring... I have no doubt that he'll see this, but I'm posting this here because I get the impression that he doesn't want to be seen as somebody who would like to be an admin down the road. Again, I think he'll be a great admin, just needs to wait.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Of course, in light of the recent conversation, this just might be the time for him to run!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: I'm considering nominating you..

No blocks, no editing skellingtons as far as i'm aware and 3 Editor Reviews. Some recent AfD experience (I'm involved in 3 right now, I think) but not masses. I've volunteered as a wikea pig for a prototype RfA design that should be going up some time between tomorrow and sunday, however, but I thank you for your offer (the new design came up through brainstorming after I'd left a message on your talkpage; my apologies for not informing you). If you'd still like to co-nom leave me a message; otherwise sorry for wasting your time. Ironholds 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks :). We're looking for two more candidates, one with previous RfA's and one without to help test the new process as well; do you know anyone who might be interested? Ironholds 17:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for your help :). Good luck with the candidates you nom. Ironholds 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:G.A.S

Bingo dude. Tops. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well keep it going. Anything is better than nothing..! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Speight

Do you have any more issues with the article? Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear Dweller, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Dear Dweller, I would personally like to thank you for your kind words in the nomination; it is rare that a stranger would go to such lengths for one. I appreciate it. Please take care. G.A.S 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign

Hey Dweller, I've updated my Main Page Redesign proposal substantially, and you had some really great points last time you commented - hopefully you'll see the effects of your suggestions. It would be great if you could comment on the new proposal, I'm really proud of how it's shaping up. Many thanks -- Pretzels^Talk! 09:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Enigmaman

I've kept my eye on him. He is competent at handling complex information and the boring stuff that would make him a productive admin. I think he will probably use the tools well, and I would just assume that failing the last RfA would have brought the most important lessons about community opinion home to him. I would like to know if he still thinks the old incident was vandalism though, or at least if he would continue to call such things "vandalism" on public platforms. The last thing we need are new admins who sound like tendentious editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, This is a HUGE endorsement for Enigma. Deacon was one of the two main voices that opposed Enigma the first time, and the fact that he has been watching Enigma and says this, means a lot to me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarumio RfC closed

Oh dear. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy.. well, if he continues again, it'll be time for community sanctions, whether it be a topic ban or whatever. Almost seems like he waited for the RfC to close before he continued.. Wizardman 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what he did. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that's what I thought too. I had actually sought community sanctions at the noticeboard before being told it was premature without an RfC. Sarumio is calculating and deliberate and disruptive, and seems incapable of taking advice without it being enforced with the stick. --Dweller (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the community will do anything, so you may end up being stuck with the last resort - WP:RFArb. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions

1. I believe my civility is good. I try to avoid the disputes/drama before it even gets started, but if I do become involved, I try to stay cool.
2. Yes, I do contribute to AFD, although it is not where I would like to work as an admin.
3. Clean block log, no warnings, etc.
4. A list:

• Experience (more experience)
• Too many RFAs, too little time (I have waited now)
• Wrong views about adminship (learned, thought about it)
• AFD "quick voting" (have not done this in a while)

Hope this helps. RedThunder 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, I was going to wait a period of time, but am not sure when to put it up. Do you have a suggestion? RedThunder 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An admin candidate

Can you somehow convince this guy to run for adminship? I have tried, albeit unsuccessfully. He feels that his activity levels would hamper the RFA, and not do justice to the admin role. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Morning. Hey, don't blame you for not getting embroiled over there.... I'll have another look. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I've been using "batted at No. 6" in all the cricket FAs as well. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On watchlist

I have responded here. Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here I am again.

Please tell me what you now think about the newly-improved List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes while it's at FLC. (Don't forget to see about the PR on that show's 1st season if you have time.) All the best to you, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And now, I'm asking you to see about the 1st season list. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a chance!

Well, it's done. For better or worse, my RfA was successful, and I woke up this morning to a very nice +sysop message. Although my final numbers (56/7/2) indicated a comfortable support rate of 89%, I am certain that without your willingness to give unusuals a chance, it would never have happened. I'm also keenly aware that many RfA regulars who feel that significant article work is a necessary precursor to adminship were willing to abstain from voting in my case out of respect for you. I also saw the way that you watched over my nomination during those crucial first couple of days when things were still touch and go. So again, my thanks to you, and please, do let me know if ever I can help with anything. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I imagine one thing I can do is help do editor reviews on your other unusuals, do let me know when one is posted and I will make time to do them. :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, as an RfA regular who believes article building is important, the reason I didn't get involved in your RfA wasn't due to respect for Dweller (Sorry Dweller), but more because by the time I saw it, it was well on the way to passing. Now, you might have had a lot of early supports because of Dweller's reputation... but he wasn't the reason why *I* didn't participate. I rarely get involved in with RfA's if there are over 20/30 !votes---unless the candidate is marginal. EG candidates that are likely to pass or fail after 30 !votes will probably not see me !voting---at that point it is rare that even the strongest oppose/support will change the tide. (As I spend 1-6 hours reviewing candidates before !voting, I don't want to waste my time when it really doesn't matter.) I don't "Pile-On" support. I suspect there are RFA regulars who have the same practice---only participating when it matters.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know that by inference I'm not marginal ;). I wasn't alluding to you in particular, but I do think that I had a much easier go of it than I would have if I had self-nominated, or had a less respected nominator in my corner. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

I see you've tried to kick-start this. I hope that your endeavours are successful.
Could you keep in touch regarding this case's status? If you need advice or input, or wish me to close the case as stale, do drop me a line.

Best, Anthøny (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for new user name

A drain on system resources? Is that a joke? What do I do then, open a new account? Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You've sparked a thread at BN: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Changing_usernames. I think you have a point. NB Per the note at the top of the page, I'm not really "in" at the moment; sorry for not following this up further right now. --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I came off as rude above, but there were other editors who have had name changes because they do not like their current user names. This is the first (and almost certainly last) time I've requested anything at all since becoming a registered editor in April 2006. I would really appreciate it if you could reconsider. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Gamer... er... The Cake is a Lie :), hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, for going out of your way to make a fellow editor's day that much better. Very much appreciated. The Cake is a Lie T / C 10:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Hello, the FLCon is currently running and unfortunately part of the problem with it is that most of our current regular reviewers are entrants. I would hate for people to lose in the contest solely because of a lack of reviewers, so could you please take a look at some of the following FLCs if you have time?

• List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford
• List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard
• List of universities in Nova Scotia
• List of Governors of Arizona
• List of St. Louis Rams head coaches
• List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations
• List of Soul Eater chapters

Thanks for your time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dweller, Gonzo and I have been discussing a potential "FL sweeps" that would help us root some of the less criteria meeting FLs and I was wondering if you had any opinions/ideas. You can find a little more about the discussion here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FLRC

Well, Gonzo is on a wikibreak, so we are down one delegate. Once again, I am firm in my belief that we do need two delegates, so I would like to appoint a new one, and I have a few ideas which I am discussing with Matthewedwards. I'll e-mail you in a bit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just came here to give you the heads up about Gonzofan. Got beat. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Dweller, I don't want to rush you, but if you could let me know what you want to do (because I would like to resolve this), that would be great. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

oops, do we need to also remind Dweller about the Tues/Saturday GimmeBot thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about FLR. Dweller, the GimmeBot will now only be run on Tuesdays and Saturdays at around 23:59, so you should try to only do your closures on that day (it shouldn't that big an issue because there isn't as much traffic/demand for closures at FLR). You can find out more here: User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Why don't you try to close RFA on Magioladitis 2? I think you still haven't done one and you will be around when it closes. Prep it ahead of time so you can +sysop right away and then do all the other stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm not interested in running up yet - but would you consider me an unusual RFA candidate? ;) Best, Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 14:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but are you a checkuser? Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 18:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, just too lazy to look up if you had them on Special:User ;) Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I lost interest in becoming an admin for a while. I'd now like to become an admin but I don't foresee a specific month. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 11:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to all watching this page

Hi. My contribs are (and have been for some weeks now) limited at the moment by a variety of RL issues, notably medical*: hence the banner at the top of my userspace.

I'm sorry if I've been neglecting matters of late, but any time I've had here has of necessity been restricted to things that can be attended to without too much time and/or careful thought invested.

Most issues that people post here about don't fall into this slot - especially my FLRC work and my campaign for nominating candidates at RfA.

The exception is Crat work. I'm painfully aware how few active Crats there are and am trying to keep on top of the issues.

Sorry again. I hope to be "back to normal" (if I'm ever "normal") in a few days, but I really cannot guarantee it. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

*and before anyone feels too alarmed, I should clarify that I have no plans of "logging off" IRL in the foreseeable future.

Wow, I hope you get better soon. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

3 !votes before transcluding

Hey Dweller, just a thought. One thing that I've grown accustomed to doing when I nom a candidate is to put a hidden note in the SUPPORT and OPPOSE sections asking people not to !vote until the RfA goes live. Addshore had 3 supports before it was transcluded... which has been known to create problems. Even as a nom, I won't !vote until it goes live (of course, I don't !vote on my noms until 100 supports or the last day, but that's besides the point.) As for Addshore... I'll have to look at him closely. I opposed strongly when he ran previously, but that doesn't equate to what I'll do this time... and like I said, if there are a lot of supports/opposes before I get involved, I might not !vote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your sig

Is this better? Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate you fixing up all the backlinks for List of Roman Catholic dioceses. Nice to see other folks using the article!

ITN

Hi! In terms of this, I don't think that a study's results are really POV. For example, if a study conducted on gravity finds that it pulls objects downwards, would we have to say "study claims that gravity is a downward force"? I wanted to see if we could resolve this so that we could get that ITN update up. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, I sorta see what you're getting at by that per your comments on Tone's talk page. I replied there as well. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)