Assuming that Magiciandude hasn't worked significantly on any other FAs without being credited at FAC (he only has one star at WP:WBFAN, so probably not), Romances would get one point for his nomination or support, nothing for widely covered, nothing for FA age, etc, so total 1 point. But I suspect that points won't be the decisive factor in the decision for St Valentine's Day, so go ahead and add another alternative so we can see what everyone prefers.

Thanks, incidentally, for the survey you're carrying out of the older FAs not to have had their moment in the sun. I'm finding it very useful in working out which to avoid and which I can select! Bencherlite^Talk 14:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Your obvious use of the list has encouraged me to keep working on it, though I do find the storm-related articles irksomely dull. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the main point, I'll leave that to Magiciandude. I felt pretty rude mentioning it in his absence, so formally nominating would be... --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dweller! Thanks for the suggestion! Yes it would be seem that age would be weighed against me since it hasn't even been a year that I got it FA. I was going to wait until next year to suggest it, but now that you mentioned it, Valentine's Day does seem very appropriate for it and it never occurred to me. Not only is it my first FA, but it's also the first article about a foreign-language album to be FA, just to throw that in there. Erick (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's a good option already running for this year. I suggest you nominate it next year - and give me a bell when you do! It's a nice FA, good luck with your next one. I found the first one was the most daunting. --Dweller (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, will do and thanks! :) Erick (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... this? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume you clicked rollback by mistake (don't worry, I've done it in the past too), so I've restored the comments.  An optimist on the run! 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Weird, I was on the train at the time. Definitely not deliberate. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, happy new year to you. --Dweller (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the comments on my nomination of Icelandic Phallological Museum for TFA, another editor has suggested Feb 13th as an alternative date. Would you support the nomination if it was switched to that date? Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support pretty much any date not connected to Feb 14. If the point of selecting Feb 13 is to somehow connect it to Valentine's Day, I'd oppose. If it's a date with relevance to the topic, I'd support. Otherwise, why not put it into the 'put it on Main Page when it suits you' bucket? --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no date with specific relevance to the topic. Feb 13 is, I think, meant to be a compromise date. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the statement is somewhat premature although I agree with or don't mind most of it. Let's wait and see what happens with the Foundation's SUL policy. If there is indeed a global merge a lot of our decision making will become irrelevant. Andrevan@ 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your heart behind making a statement, but I don't think I can support the action of a "crat statement." Although we collaborate with each other, solicit each other's opinions, and have access to very private information, in the end us crats aren't a monolithic identity. If a kerfuffle happens with an administrative action, we don't need all the admins to create an admin statement for the community. Nor would I expect or even desire to see a checkuser statement, an oversight statement, or a steward statement. We're no ArbCom, heck, we're not even an Esperanza. I think it would be good to simply do as we've done before: Make our own stances firm and clear, and agree and disagree as we see fit. bibliomaniac15 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think I was edging toward that, by making the statement in the first person ("I" not "we"). I'm trying to come up with a statement that as many of us can feel happy to support as possible. Andrevan has some reservations (above) which are thoughtful and thought provoking, but don't necessitate any changes to the text. I think your understandable point also needs no changes made to the statement. I was never under the illusion that all the Crats would support it - for a start, a good number of us rarely or never act as Crats. :0) --Dweller (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you approached me directly without linking to any discussion or anything, I'm left a bit baffled. I read part of the thread on WP:BN a few days ago but I've not kept too up to date with it. Could you clarify what exactly it is that you are trying to accomplish with getting us to agree to this statement? I apologise for how sarcastic that question sounds, but it is in fact an honest question. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for most of the past few days, so I've honestly no idea what this is about. I'm coming down with a bit of a cold now unfortunately, so I don't anticipate that I'll be much more active in the coming days either, so I'd rather abstain from all this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Thanks all. Very brief explanation: we've had some unusual drama at BN, Crats have been disagreeing on what policy/guidelines say. Furthermore, there's been an unpleasant tang in the air that implies that Crats have been trying to expand their powers.

To my mind, the whole affair has rather undermined our position as careful and considered assessors and implementers of consensus. The statement is designed to help address this.

The statement I put together was intended so that Crats from both sides of the discussion could agree to it, which has been successful. I'm going to post at BN soon.

If you're not sure of the ins and outs, or are unwell or inactive for some other reason, that's absolutely fine. I deliberately worded the statement as one that individual Crats can support, not as an en-bloc statement that reflects the whole group. Thanks for reading. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the principle of what you're said, and the overall purpose of the statement, but I have disagreements with the wording and some points in the statement, so I regret I am unable to sign it myself. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I wish I'd seen this before I posted it to BN, or I might have tried to wordsmith it, but as I've said, it's not an en-banc statement. --Dweller (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wish for me to post on BN that I agree with the overarching purpose of the statement but am unable to sign due to some minor(ish) issues I have with it? Or do you feel that would weaken your stance? I do not wish to do that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the former would be the most transparent and honest, if you have the time. --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I would be happy to. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller - this article is in an awful state and currently up for AfD. Any chance you could use your knowledge/resources to bring the article up to scratch please? Willing to do it myself but I'm doing similar on other lists and thought I'd give you a shout first. GiantSnowman 11:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't know it existed. But now, I'm perplexed. Both the main article (Norwich City F.C.) and the club template (Template:Norwich City F.C.) link to Category:Norwich City F.C. players. With good reason: what value does this list article add to the Category? I suppose what it does is consolidate in one place things like appearances and goals, but people can either see them at the players' biographies, or see the leading stats at List of Norwich City F.C. records, so what's the purpose of an article like this? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're extremely popular and useful as a record of every player to play for the club - see Category:Lists of association football players by club in England, we've got a number of GAs there. I think they're definitely notable, if done properly. GiantSnowman 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound argumentative (!) but while I understand both of those points, neither really answers my question. I'll see if the listmeister general has a view, too. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just find them extremely useful as a concise history of a club's players. I'm sure TRM will be able to expand more eloquently than me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> OK. The AfD looks like it's close to a snowball keep anyway, with good reason. Sourcing will be tricky, as I'm not aware of anything online that's useful here, beyond showing the leading all-time stats. I have a copy of Canary Citizens, but it's badly out of date and it'd be most laborious to plough through it. Unless someone decides [www.ex-canaries.co.uk] is RS. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Brown's site is a perfect start; I used it as the basis for the lists I created (1 now completed; 2 others still in progress). GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great source, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article, see what Struway2 has been up to lately at WP:FLC with Birmingham City's players. There's plenty of scope for a series of player articles, fewer than 25, 25 to 99, more than 100.... and all we need is sources for each and every player (not Soccerbase)! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what source does one use for players currently at a club? --Dweller (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point, ncfc themselves is a good starting point. The biggest issue is with the players that drop between the last book and the most recent updates. Then you have to work a little harder....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, as a "fellow traveler" in halacha, I would advise you to be really careful and circumspect about going down this road on subjects like "idolatry" and "slavery" in a place like WP:RD/H. By modern standards, execution of a lot of the halachos you mention there appears very harsh, and while people who are talmidei chachamim understand these things, they are complex and involved, and there are plenty of respondents who will have no interest in listening anyway. Consider (in this context) the halacha with respect to teaching non-Jews Torah. I don't subscribe to it as an utter ban at all times and at all levels of detail, but a thread like that one is a great example of a place where it is arguably not good to go.

One other thought: If you ever start going down the road of Eved Ivri, I would almost immediately point out that the concept is far more accurately described by the English phrase "indentured servitude" than by the English word "slavery". Remember that the root ayin-bet-daled has meanings ranging everywhere from "plain old work" to "slavery" and everywhere in between. There's no reason to make it sound worse than it is. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed that I responded (not initiated) to complaints that the response to idolators was harsh by pointing out that the Bible's lenient approach to slavery shows we can't approach it on modern terms. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I didn't see anything wrong with what you actually wrote—on the contrary, in fact. My points are more than (a) at the end of the day I don't think you'll ever satisfy that forum, no matter how hard you try, and (b) you should call "slavery" of the Eved Ivri type "indentured servitude" instead. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just noticed Alan's little outburst before being unblocked. Hilarious. Please un-redact it though, I'd like the community to be fully aware of the way he conducts his conversations. I believe that's my right. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're there, I'm not at all satisfied with "You get users like Alan that get blocked for petty shit like this and you have other users and admins doing whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want and we just turn our backs to it. " from Kumioko either, a direct and unsubstantiated personal attack. I've left a note at Kumioko's page, but I'm surprised this kind of baseless accusation was allowed to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I clarified on my talk page. It wasn't directed at TRM. Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help at the talk page and the defence on the main page talk; it's not the first time you have come to the aid of this article in the face of some vocal opposition to its existence, and it is greatly appreciated. I don't think I'll be nominating for TFA again for a while though! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Stubs				Cleanup
		Bill Storer				Kamran Akmal
		Bert Stansfield				Mind control in popular culture
		William Whitcher				England women's cricket team
		Nick Folland		Merge
		Duggie Lochhead				The Great Betrayal
		Hilary Squires				Street cricket
		John Francome				Dead Sea Scrolls
		Dimuth Karunaratne		Add sources
		James Kerr (footballer)				Djemal Pasha
		Ahmet Benler				Flashbacks of a Fool
		Eleanor Lambert (cricketer)				Hasidic Judaism
		Loan covenant		Wikify
		Roger Munby				Jed Steer
		Noel Hughes				Simon Lappin
		Judah ben Tabbai				Yorkshire County Cricket Club in 2005
		Denis Begbie		Expand
		Jack Mason				REC 3: Genesis
		Richard Parkhouse				Sébastien Bassong
		Richard Hutton (cricketer)				Sky

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) 01:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYKUpdateBot — I told you so!

Finding this page by accident and scrolling to the bottom, I saw your small-text comment :-) I know it's not January 2008 anymore, but what is five years? Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<grins> --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gentle advice
Thank you for quality articles on English football clubs, such as Bayern Munich v Norwich City, for your services as bureaucrat and oversighter, for help to not shouting, for your suggestions for wikistressed editors, for ideas for a future, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (11 January 2009, 19 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind, thank you. I loved receiving those awards in 2009 and it's great that you've kept the tradition running. Phaedriel, who had the idea in the first place, is sadly missed. --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is PumpkinSky who (as Rlevse) did it for the longest time and gave me mine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered, Rlevse's departure was quite a shock. Doing the award is a good thing. More power to your elbow. --Dweller (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same. It was the first time I saw how the project deals with contributors. The second time, BarkingMoon, I wrote He was despised. Next shock was when PumpkinSky left again and was blocked, for being Rlevse, about a year ago. Skipping a few, now he left again feeling he's not wanted. It's a few who don't want him, and many who miss him, but how to reason with a feeling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 390th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review my usurpation request? WP:Usurp. Thanks! ―Rosscoolguy 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pony!
Congratulations! For your helping hand to wikistressed editors, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 16:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)they're also expensive when they go wrong, but otherwise they're brilliant! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC) That's very kind, thank you. I'm glad you liked my essay. I have written a few - see User:Dweller/quirky. I like horses, but not on shirts - a point I'm surprised that TRM didn't mention, being that he's a Tractor Boy! --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, I see you were heavily involved in the FA promotion of Bryan Gunn. I have gone through the article to update dead links but three remain. If you could take a look when you have a minute, it would be good to get everything working again. Thanks, C679 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice work. One of the three was easy to fix. The Gunn Club one was really hard - I think everyone just takes it for granted! Anyway, done, although badly formatted ... I can't format refs to save my life. I'm a bit stumped for the third one as archive.org doesn't seem to have a mirror of the old canaries site in its archive. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to pick up about 60% of the old canaries site from the archive, but it's a problem which has affected many football biographies and stadium articles too. Still, one bad link from 105 is less than 1%! Thanks, C679 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<grins>Nice work, thanks. You might like to know I'm planning to see if I can get the article on Main Page on Dec 22, his 50th birthday. Meanwhile, I'll look to replace that one deadlink quote with a similar one. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Stubs				Cleanup
		Mick Fitzgerald				Mark Bunn (English footballer)
		Steve James (cricketer)				Kamran Akmal
		Colin Miller (cricketer)				Dickson Etuhu
		Bert Stansfield		Merge
		Sean Hesketh				Musar movement
		John Francome				Cannabis (drug)
		Hilary Squires				The Great Betrayal
		Duggie Lochhead		Add sources
		Jamie Fielden				England cricket team
		Gerry Sandusky				Sanath Jayasuriya
		James Houston (rugby league)				Formula editor
		Tom Youngs		Wikify
		Tony Tonks				Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the Louisiana Superdome
		Darren Molloy				Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from January 2013)
		Yardley Court				Yorkshire County Cricket Club in 2005
		Scott Rhodes		Expand
		Anthony Little (rugby)				MiniDisc
		Central Plains League				Shane Warne
		Addisleigh Park				Andrew Strauss

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) 04:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dweller,

if I renamed my username only on enwiki, but then I also want to rename the same global name in another wiki, would there be any issues? I was told that if I rename it on another wiki, then I must lose my current username on enwiki. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you've been told wrong. "Users can still have differently named accounts on two sites; however, these accounts will not be linked for unified login". In practice, this might make life a little awkward. If you decide to get an SUL for one of your accounts, it will automatically log you in under that name on all wikis you visit, which could prove confusing or worse give an impression of sockpuppetry. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, where is she? I have been largely inactive in the last couple of years, so I apparently missed her departure. Someone asked on her talk page about books she was writing - do you know anything of that? — Sebastian 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's so long ago, I can't remember what I know that's onwiki and what's not and I don't want to betray any confidences. I suspect if you trawl her last month or two's edits, you'll track things down. Apologies if that's a wriggling response. I feel wriggly over it. --Dweller (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I understand. My post was already a bit awkward for the same reason. I also saw what that other poster saw, but was left with the same question. But it doesn't matter; please feel free to delete this conversation; we can always communicate by mail. Good night! — Sebastian 23:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a little bit to bodyline about the changes to the law about fielders behind square and couldn't help but notice that parts of the article are getting a bit scruffy, and it's certainly not as polished as it was when it reached FA. I tidied up a little bit, but the really messy part (it's become slightly incoherent in places) is the "In Australia" section. There's no great urgency about this as such; it's already been TFA, but I think it's something of showpiece article for WP:CRIC, and it gets scary numbers of views for a cricket article. I'll probably pick away at it slowly from time to time, but I think you are one of the few survivors from when it went to FA (I think the much-missed YM did quite a bit of work). Fancy polishing it up a little over some vaguely-defined time period? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time. Might be worth doing a diff comparison on the relevant section, between what it said when the article passed FA and now and see what's useful addition and what's junk. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin, would you comment on the request at WP:REFUND#User talk:Gb? JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've replied there. --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, it's just a case of my frustration that we get bogged down in procedure and a worry that we rely too heavily on certain sources - CA, CI and Wisden - and that what they say goes. They don't have the authoritative place in cricket that they once did, and I think the cricket project places far too much emphasis on them. Wisden or CricketArchive may say that the recent West Indies tour of Bangladesh took place in 2012-13, but as far as the Bangladesh Cricket Board are concerned it took place in 2012. As I said, yes a tour is part of a season spanning two years, but it doesn't itself span those two years, as I was trying to point out with my comparisons with two other sports. It's revealing that those comparisons are ignored. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just, wanna say sorry since you think i try to threat you. It was not my intention, i was just trying to help the user so he could get an answer from the family quickly and easily and hopefully prevent it turned into a lawsuit. Please, dont ban me forever ): 109.232.72.49 (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, I'm wondering about why I have to log in with my old username when I visit other projects? Is the rename only for this project or for all the wikisites? T4B (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This project only, which the instructions should make clear. If you want to rename the others, you'll need to do it by contacting local bureaucrats on each one, or (much easier) asking a steward, who can do the whole lot in one go. Give them a link to your rename at WP:CHU/S here, to show what's been done. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Actually, if there are local bureaucrats on a project, you must ask them first before contacting a steward. --Rschen7754 10:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your replies. I will try to contact local bureaucrats on other projects. T4B (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has. I'm a bureaucrat. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, im wondering how i change my username to abkn264? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthBankTower (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi! I've placed a request on your behalf at the appropriate venue, so you can be renamed sooner rather than latter (since Dweller rarely edits on weekends). Happy editing and, should you have any questions, you can ask on my talk page, the Help Desk, or here (I'm more than certain that Dweller would be happy to help). Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tyrol. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! please, could you help me change my username? I posted a request. Here's the link to "rename user": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Renameuser&reason=WP:CHU&oldusername=Wladek+Sheen&newusername=Richard+S.+Lee+Cooper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladek Sheen (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Stubs				Cleanup
		Tony Tonks				2012 NBA Draft
		Layla Young				Ian Crook
		Tom Haughey				Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the Louisiana Superdome
		Addisleigh Park		Merge
		Chris Langley				Shoehorning
		Richard Whiting (rugby league)				The Great Betrayal
		Bert Stansfield				Street cricket
		Geoff Barnsley		Add sources
		Duggie Lochhead				MiniDisc
		Hilary Squires				Av
		Anya Corke				Joe Flacco
		Neil Carter (cricketer)		Wikify
		Bayanihan				Mark Bunn (English footballer)
		Ferdi Neita Sports Complex				Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from January 2013)
		Mercedes-Benz Superdome				2012–13 Chelsea F.C. season
		John T. Walsh (Adventist)		Expand
		Edwin Mellen Press				Andrew Strauss
		Greenfield Stadium (Trelawny)				Shane Warne
		Jamie Fielden				Sébastien Bassong

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) 11:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can BLP apply to someone who died over 8 years ago? AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A reasonable question, here's a hopefully reasonable answer. WP:BLP tells me to protect individuals if they're less than 115 years old, when there's no reliable source stating that they are dead. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Full Circle (2008 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

IMDB page is non-existent. Only reference on this film is to IMDB.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Manway 05:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've improved the article, which had fallen off my watchlist, with two new sources and removed the prod. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you requesting an admin opinion on a neutrality/bio matter. Tony (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller,

I know I should take a cup of tea and relax or whatever, but I'm about sick of The Rambling Man calling me a liar. [1]. I'm going out of town for two days, when I get back I'll need to to restore that userpage you deleted previously. I've had enough of this guy. --IP98 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you called it right in your first few words. The interval seems to have done a power of good. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material on BLPs - contentious or not - should be challenged and (in my view) removed. Stub first, ask questions later. It's better to re-add later once reliable sources have been found, as opposed to hoping somebody locates sources to support the material that is already there. GiantSnowman 13:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that that is your opinion, but I can't see support for that stance in policy. I've only seen that contentious material should be removed. Can you point me to the right place, please? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." GiantSnowman 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the same as saying "contentious material should be removed". It depends on your definition of "contentious" or "any material challenged" or worse "likely" to be challenged. Removing all unreferenced information in BLPs is slightly odd though, I've seen plenty of ^{[citation needed]} tags floating around in BLPs. Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged? A difficult situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged?" - my sentiments exactly. We cannot be too careful with unreferenced material, especially with BLPs. Tagging something with ^{[citation needed]} does actual little to improve the encyclopedia and many remain tagged for years. I removed one a few years ago that was first added back in 2007! GiantSnowman 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree more with the idea that all unsourced information in BLPs should be removed on sight. The policy makes it clear that it's dealing with material that is contentious and/or likely to be challenged. That is not everything. You may be unhappy that this leaves a subjective decision to be made on each and every statement, but Wikipedia's policies frequently rely on subjective decisions being made. If you disagree with the policy, feel free to initiate a discussion about it at the talk page, but you don't have a policy-based justification for removing everything unsourced from a BLP because someone might challenge it. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything is likely to be challenged - hence the numerous edit wars that plague en.wiki on a daily basis. Your are seriously under-estimating the harm that BLPs can do, and the need to be extra-strict with them. What I am removing is, for all intents and purposes, unverified (and potentially incorrect) information agbout living people, and I am flabbergasted that you have any kind of issue with that. GiantSnowman 13:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why the BLP policy doesn't say "Any material must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." What is the relevance of "challenged or likely to be challenged" and the earlier usage of "contentious" in the policy? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not perfect, and neither is its policies. GiantSnowman 14:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this. Sorry about that. — Ched :  ?  17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh, don't worry about it. I wasn't trying to complain, just ensuring my suggestion was seen. It's my fault for deciding not to subsection it in the first place. Kind of you to apologise, but really not necessary. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that anyone can post there, but I can see the concept that there's times it's easier to follow if you guys (not sure if there's any female type crats or not come to think of it) can keep your own stuff together too. Hmmm ... Maybe next time I have reason to post there I'll add a "=== Comments by others ===" sections - seems to work for the arbs. <Ched goes off to ponder this new insight> Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have an opportunity, please see my response to your questions on the talk page of my article Operation Tracer, Gibraltar. Thank you. Anne (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll reply there. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Stubs				Cleanup
		W.P. Bailey				Ian Crook
		Colin Miller (cricketer)				2012 NBA Draft
		Canagliflozin				England women's cricket team
		Richard Hutton (cricketer)		Merge
		Hilary Squires				Bengali wedding
		Marco van Ginkel				Complementary good
		Indian Veterinary Research Institute				Panela
		Pressure ridge (lava)		Add sources
		Geoff Barnsley				List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction
		Christopher Foster (cricketer)				Kick-Ass 2 (film)
		Otha Bailey				Joe Flacco
		IPCL Sports Complex Ground		Wikify
		Joseph Rowbotham				Kamran Akmal
		Bob Bailey (baseball)				Carolyn Sherwin Bailey
		Robert L. Bailey				Pompeii
		Matthew Wood (cricketer, born 1977)		Expand
		Layla Young				Sébastien Bassong
		The Living and the Dead (album)				MiniDisc
		Martha Gehman				Society of Jesus

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) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, dear Dweller, for coming up with a comprehensive statement in reply to User:Donmust90's latest. Since I posted my reply, which took far more of my precious late-night time than I can fairly spare, I've been thinking of applying to the RD's Talk page for advice, as this question has pushed me past my AGF limit. Admittedly this is the hardest week on the Israeli calendar, between Yom Hashoah and Yom Hazikaron and so much to think about the dead and the circumstances past and present. So I'll be damned if I'm going to provide some persistently querying nudnik [? - what is s/he up to, anyway?] with what I consider explosive material. I consider myself as a stalwart RefDesk cadre and I'll continue patrolling my SME sector, but this time I'm close to losing it. Thanks for being "here" and do keep up the good work; your presence is a comfort. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have helped, thanks for the lovely message. And look up: Yom Haatz is on the horizon, with Lag Ba'Omer, Yom Yerushalayim and the always-lovely Shavuot not far behind. I'd support a fairly gentle approach. I'm not totally convinced he's trolling. I'm less of a regular contributor than I used to be (really!) so feel free to ping me any time - my email is enabled. --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dweller. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Sneazy (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's not arrived. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and I soberly but cheerfully invite you to virtually share it - and a happy day, Deborahjay (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: see this. Do you think it's appropriate to pull out two results against a single club in an article which is supposed to be dealing the whole of Norwich City? If you think so, I'll happily decline from removing this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point of view. I'd be inclined to keep it, but as the results of the last league meetings between the clubs [and clearly labelled that way], to be replaced one day... which is how we had things before that season, IIRC, although no time right now to check the article history, but seems sensible and balanced. But happy to be persuaded otherwise. --Dweller (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting what seems to be conflicting advice from administrators. Please clarify what, if anything, you think I should be doing regarding the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long term problems with WP:VERIFY. BTW-- I would have used the ((Talkback)) template here, but I wasn't sure if it can be used to link to noticeboards. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By conflicting advice, I mean what Qwyrxian said here, and what you said on the notice board. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at ANI and I've posted at your talk. Let's keep things in two places, but I don't understand why Qwrxian, an admin I have a lot of time for, would give you such advice, unless there's more to this than you've presented at ANI. But like I say, let's end this thread here, please. --Dweller (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I will keep it on the noticeboard. I never intended to break this discussion up. I just wanted you to know that I had replied specifically to something you said. As for the ANI, I honestly don't really care about its outcome at this point. I simply thought I was doing what an administrator suggested I should do. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Dweller (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I withdraw a request on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Is it as simple as stating that? Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. --Dweller (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I apologize if I was in error. I honestly thought I was doing what Qwyrxian recommended. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Patrick Schöffski → Lieve Ons Current name: Patrick Schöffski Bureaucrat note: Before we make the name change, please confirm that you have read WP:COI and understand it applies regardless of your username.--Dweller (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC) --> I've read the WP:COI — Precedingunsigned comment added by Patrick Schöffski (talk • contribs) 07:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in keeping the trolls at bay. I think you can safely remove all the added "info" and look for an uninvolved admin to mete out some blocks. See my last post at the talk for the reason why. Not sure if you've seen it or not yet. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I should follow up on something you left on my talk page, and also discussed on User Talk:Levdr1lostpassword, because the position you are taking really seems to me to be at odds with our fundamental way of working. You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged" in WP:BURDEN/WP:V. This is where the problem comes in for me: any statement which the average person is not aware of simply on the basis of being alive is "likely to be challenged". Another way of putting it is that, in reality, over 90% of all info that could reasonably appear in a WP article can be legitimately challenged. The only exceptions I can think of are things like movie plots, where any person observing the movie would naturally observe the same things (any interpretation of meaning, though, would require citations). Now, the nature of the information will likely dictate whether we approach the matter with "cn" tags and discussion or immediate removal, but, ultimately, information needs to be sourced. And if someone is consistently violating WP:V by adding unsourced information, why would we not block such a user? Why would we block someone for regularly violating WP:CIV but not WP:V? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been identified as someone who does a large number of renames. If you could visit meta:Rename practices and explain your renaming practices and policy, we would appreciate the effort. We are making this request to help us better understand local renaming practices as we work towards SUL finalization. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your question on the Wheldon Road talk page. I went to a match there for the first time last Sunday and it was still there. It made me smile too although I actually went in the pub opposite the ground, the Boot Room. Haldraper (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Stubs				Cleanup
		Richard Hutton (cricketer)				Kamran Akmal
		Keith Brown (cricketer)				Roy Rogers Restaurants
		Harold Hinde				Dion Dublin
		Indian Veterinary Research Institute		Merge
		William Ringrose				Complementary good
		Farber's Nerve				Umpire (cricket)
		Pamela Ropner				Worldwar
		Jack Marriott (footballer)		Add sources
		Christopher Foster (cricketer)				History of film
		W.P. Bailey				England cricket team
		Marco van Ginkel				AFL Tribunal
		17th-century denominations in England		Wikify
		Peter McPhee				Watcom C/C++ compiler
		Traditionalism (religion)				England women's cricket team
		Matthew Wood (cricketer, born 1977)				Cricket in World War I
		Tentacles (film)		Expand
		Caluya, Antique				Society of Jesus
		Oliver Hannon-Dalby				List of sovereign states in Europe by minimum wage
		Quebec Route 185				Andrew Strauss

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) 13:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, hope things are okay with you. Could you have a look at this outburst from IP98, quite why my oppose to an ITN item has deserved this I know not. He's disallowed me from editing his talkpage, so that's why I need to ask a helper... Cheers. P.S. At the very least IP98 should be encouraged to quote me correctly, I didn't say "not sufficiently important", I said " simply not in the news." The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's now made this edit which is clearly a response to my request at ThaddeusB's page to quote me correctly, but used the "fuck you" edit summary. Wondering how far we go until this transgresses WP:NPA. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [2]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I don't have access to CheckUser, it seems you've approached the wrong person. If you visit WP:CHECKUSER, there's a list there, but the correct course of action is, of course, to visit Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
2		Wyzmindz (talk)						Add sources
1,347		History of film (talk)						Add sources
12		Drahomíra (talk)						Add sources
1,257		England cricket team (talk)						Add sources
1,028		Persuasion (talk)						Add sources
384		Sanath Jayasuriya (talk)						Add sources
4		Robert Leroy Bailey (talk)						Cleanup
142		Shaun Tait (talk)						Cleanup
50		Depression in childhood and adolescence (talk)						Cleanup
304		Andrew Strauss (talk)						Expand
208		Sébastien Bassong (talk)						Expand
77		Laws of rugby union (talk)						Expand
173		Allan Donald (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
18		Rashi's daughters (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
17		Gospel for Asia (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
566		Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar (talk)						Merge
206		Umpire (cricket) (talk)						Merge
80		Street cricket (talk)						Merge
189		Kamran Akmal (talk)						Wikify
64		England women's cricket team (talk)						Wikify
172		Papal name (talk)						Wikify
3		William Hanson (cricketer) (talk)						Orphan
1		Daniel Pratt (cricketer) (talk)						Orphan
2		Brian Lemmy (talk)						Orphan
11		Village cricket (talk)						Stub
67		Abderrazak Hamdallah (talk)						Stub
32		Andrew Pierce (talk)						Stub
4		Hilary Squires (talk)						Stub
9		Richard Chee Quee (talk)						Stub
4		Tarheel, North Carolina (talk)						Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dweller. You have new messages at Talk:Oh Very Young.
Message added by – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
59		Tape ball (talk)						Add sources
1,257		England cricket team (talk)						Add sources
60		Ray Illingworth (talk)						Add sources
11		Village cricket (talk)						Add sources
4		Solon Irving Bailey (talk)						Add sources
71		Robert Bailey, Jr. (talk)						Add sources
138		Shaun Tait (talk)						Cleanup
117		Glenn Roeder (talk)						Cleanup
255		Solution of triangles (talk)						Cleanup
129		Sébastien Bassong (talk)						Expand
50		Kevin Bond (footballer) (talk)						Expand
384		Andrew Strauss (talk)						Expand
141		Allan Donald (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
15		Gospel for Asia (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
185		King David Hotel bombing (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
684		Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar (talk)						Merge
12		Priesthood (Ancient Israel) (talk)						Merge
4		Uxbridge Cricket Club (talk)						Merge
205		Kamran Akmal (talk)						Wikify
14		Michael Green (television magnate) (talk)						Wikify
31		Meyer Seewald (talk)						Wikify
4		Robert Leroy Bailey (talk)						Orphan
2		Brian Lemmy (talk)						Orphan
2		Matt Watson (cricketer) (talk)						Orphan
1		Peter McPhee (talk)						Stub
15		Marc D. Angel (talk)						Stub
41		Jon Levin (talk)						Stub
14		Jack Marriott (footballer) (talk)						Stub
2		Short Trips: Steel Skies (talk)						Stub
3		W.P. Bailey (talk)						Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 11:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dweller. I accidentally performed a couple of edits on Jewish holidays as an IP, rather than under my user name. (They are the only two IP edits in the middle of a string of edits under my username.) Can you either suppress the edit log on those or modify them to my username? Thanks, and apologies for the blunder. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
875		Australia national cricket team (talk)						Add sources
19		Sir Garfield Sobers Trophy (talk)						Add sources
7,148		Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (talk)						Add sources
88		Calvin College (talk)						Add sources
84		2013–14 Blackpool F.C. season (talk)						Add sources
1,238		England cricket team (talk)						Add sources
162		Solution of triangles (talk)						Cleanup
147		Shaun Tait (talk)						Cleanup
228		Kamran Akmal (talk)						Cleanup
182		Sébastien Bassong (talk)						Expand
1,887		Balkans (talk)						Expand
660		Andrew Strauss (talk)						Expand
642		Inzamam-ul-Haq (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
146		Allan Donald (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
197		King David Hotel bombing (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
551		Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar (talk)						Merge
222		Umpire (cricket) (talk)						Merge
7		Uxbridge Cricket Club Ground (talk)						Merge
66		Glenn Roeder (talk)						Wikify
267		Yips (talk)						Wikify
152		Timeline of major crimes in Australia (talk)						Wikify
12		Meyer Seewald (talk)						Orphan
3		Robert Leroy Bailey (talk)						Orphan
1		Brian Lemmy (talk)						Orphan
9		Gavin Robertson (talk)						Stub
1		Peter McPhee (talk)						Stub
20		Jack Marriott (footballer) (talk)						Stub
9		Village cricket (talk)						Stub
18		Indian spin quartet (talk)						Stub
4		Yawar Saeed (talk)						Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 11:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, should make for an interesting discussion! And yes, the season is shaping up v. nicely already... GiantSnowman 15:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

There are only 4 romainan teams in this year UEFA competition Astra, Petrolul, Pandurii (EL) and Stueua (CL). Who is team 5? QED237 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The chart says (look for yourself) that the country occupying that space has two teams in the CL and 3 in the UEFA Cup. If Romania has only four, it must be in a lower spot in the table. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked it out. They were entitled to four teams, and then the chart has been updated to show changes to the co-efficients since the places were handed out. How very misleading. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In September 2012, you indefinitely semi-protected Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket due to persistent vandalism. I thought protecting a talk page was unusual, and I've learned at WP:Protection policy#Talk pages such protection is meant to be rare and, when necessary, done only for a limited period of time.

Please unprotect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Thanks. 72.244.204.239 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you cite does not refer to projectspace, but to article talk pages. The talk page of the Cricket WikiProject is intended for members of the WikiProject to liaise and coordinate. Normally, IP editors and newly registered accounts would be welcome to participate, but the level of disruption we've encountered in the recent past made that into a net loss. As such, I'm not minded to remove the semi protection. Anyone wishing to liaise with the project has merely to create an account and use it productively for a short period. However, it's not my page, it's the WikiProject's and I'll discuss it with the rest to see if anyone disagrees with me. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, I've consulted with the others, and have gone with the consensus to unprotect the page. Thanks for prompting this: I hope it works out well. --Dweller (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you able to remove the Dougal Butler entry from the DYK template? StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd like at least some semblance of consensus (or a chance for someone to explain I'm wrong) before I go tramping on Main Page with my size nines. It's apparently been flagged as a problem at ERRORS for six hours already, another 10-15 minutes won't make much difference now. --Dweller (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go ahead and tramp, and I'm appalled that the article creator is defending it at BLPN unfortunately the article creator misunderstood the issue. It's wrong on so many counts - the sourcing to the autobiography, the focus on a criminal act, and the expression of one person's claim in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
243		Headgear (talk)						Add sources
54		Ray Illingworth (talk)						Add sources
7		Hans Unger (talk)						Add sources
33		Gordon Pirie (talk)						Add sources
461		Twenty20 (talk)						Add sources
427		ICC Player Rankings (talk)						Add sources
60		Darius Guppy (talk)						Cleanup
4		Cricket in World War I (talk)						Cleanup
179		Project Habakkuk (talk)						Cleanup
3		2006 English cricket season (talk)						Expand
39		1986–87 in English football (talk)						Expand
1,440		The Looney Tunes Show (talk)						Expand
404		Fork bomb (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
58		Alphonse Mouzon (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
277		AB de Villiers (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
3		Short Trips: Past Tense (talk)						Merge
3		Uxbridge Cricket Club (talk)						Merge
11		Priesthood (Ancient Israel) (talk)						Merge
126		England women's cricket team (talk)						Wikify
264		World Vision International (talk)						Wikify
1,527		Fez (video game) (talk)						Wikify
1		Matt Watson (cricketer) (talk)						Orphan
2		William Hanson (cricketer) (talk)						Orphan
1		William Spottiswoode (cricketer) (talk)						Orphan
0		William Ringrose (talk)						Stub
10		ROR1 (talk)						Stub
3		Richard Harden (talk)						Stub
4		Tony Powell (footballer) (talk)						Stub
6		Karutha Rathrikal (talk)						Stub
3		Sebastián Balsas (talk)						Stub