User talk:Dweller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Signpost
30 September 2019

Fairly inactive[edit]

I'm afraid I'm likely to be not very active for a while. See the notice above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I see, understand. I you have a moment, check out User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2019 (formerly Christmas), for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Dweller, just as a point of curiosity I noticed that you haven't performed any global renames as yet. Was wondering if you need a quick primer on renames in the global system, or perhaps want to think about relinquishing the privileges if they're not going to be used to reduce attack surfaces. –xenotalk 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I gained that permission just before being forced by RL into some hefty inactivity and haven't thought about it since. I'm reasonably inactive just at the moment again. I'll take a look when I reemerge. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Next assignment[edit]

Okay, "busy" notice notwithstanding, we're reaching the tumultuous climax of Beattie's achingly slow FAC. I wondered if you had any interest in seeing what we could do with Dickie Bird? I have his autobiography and will be doing lots of long-haul travel over the next two or three months.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose has left some suggestions relating to the myriad quotes in the Beattie article, fancy taking a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Onwiki time very limited and I'm sticking to trivialities. I've barely scanned the suggestions but Ian is a good FA participant and knows what he's talking about if you're happy, I'd accept all his suggestions. It's possible my growing admiration for Beattie skewed my judgement, though I've always been a sucker for a quote, because real people's voices are interesting and overcome the tendency towards vanilla that NPOV and PEACOCK push us to --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Okeydokes. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Caleta de Famara, Lanzarote.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for improving articles! Did you know that Precious began 7 years ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Kevin Beattie, described "by Bobby Robson as the greatest England footballer he had ever seen, Beattie's story is one of tragedy and premature foreshortening in many senses. A complete footballer, an Ipswich legend, back when the Tractor Boys were a European force to be reckoned with ..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Good news[edit]

I finally got a book about South Australian cars for the Hammer article. It got a lot more information and even a picture of the car! --Vauxford (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The Beat's gone on[edit]

Okay, we've finally moved on. Ramsey now. And while I'm travelling, Butcher. It might be possible that ITFC will have more FA's than any other club if we keep it up...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Butcher was Coventry manager for a while in the early nineties. Not one of our greatest periods that though, as he guided us to almost being relegated twice.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Butcher? It was bad enough doing the tachefather. Can we finish The gap-toothed one instead? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Re this. That's the only mention of Alfie on the page. Did you mean UninvitedCompany? (Sorry if this adds to your stress levels.) - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No stress. Alfie's there, he just has a signature that doesn't look like his username. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! That's me! -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. I should have searched with the edit window open. Lesson learned! - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
All good. One of the downsides of having a cool signature is that it sometimes causes a bit of confusion, I'm sure Alfie's used to it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's Welsh week at FAC...[edit]

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cardiff City F.C./archive2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get to it. Sad times for them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Not patronising"[edit]

That's just Jayron's posting style. It's elaborate and arguably over-fussy, but I wouldn't call it patronising. --Viennese Waltz 09:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

we thank you[edit]

Willow, Überlingen.jpg

Thank you for article improvements in February! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

... and in March - click on "March" for travel pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In April, I wondered if I should alert you to a RfA but then though that you wanted to remain neutral in order be able to cratchat. A bit sad that I was wrong ;) - You don't have to read much, Iridescent said it all. Ah well, I read good advice this morning ("Did I really waste all those years arguing about that?") and won't argue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a feeling: many names in the support section looked familiar, and many in the oppose new. I may be wrong in numbers, and have no time to analyse, so understand you, of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I take RfA very very seriously. I wouldn't support or oppose a candidate I hadn't researched and I wouldn't use my Crat tools, or opine as a Crat, without having done a proper job of reading the relevant pages. I just can't do any of that right now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I said I understand, no? I am biased. Best for whatever keeps you busy in real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I said I understand, but looking at a withdrawal offer, might you look after all? Just read the crat chat, I think all descriptions are valid, just the conclusions differ. The key question seems (to me) if you have to be a saint to be an admin on Wikipedia, or if people who make mistakes are also welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Quick scan suggests to me like the Crats will probably grant adminship but they can't make him rescind his withdrawal. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
To me, it still looks like no consensus (whatever that may mean) to me, but I am not in the crat position, don't even look there often. Did you see the women's corner on the chat talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
No. I've not read the RfA, Crat Chat or talk pages. Just glanced. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Waldsauerklee, Rauenthal.jpg
... with thanks from QAI
Thank you for having read it now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

When you're less busy...[edit]

... Ramsey has some FAC issues it would be cool if you could take a look at. Either because I need your eagle eyes, or because I'm not playing along. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


The blurb at the bottom of the page is what I've got so far for your cricket article ... normally I wait until a FAC is promoted before I point anyone to the blurb, but I'd prefer to avoid embarrassing myself with my minuscule cricket knowledge. Edits would be welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Still useful.[edit]

Wiki medal.jpg The Featured Article Medal
With thanks for "On Featured Article Candidates", even though barnstars are out of fashion. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh that is ever so sweet of you, Gog the Mild. If you check my signature, you'll see that I'm desperately keen to get what is no longer in fashion back into fashion. At least on Wikipedia, anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah ha. You are most welcome, and thank you for formulating those helpful notes - they have assisted another relative newbie - me - in orientating themselves in this novel environment. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ramsey refs[edit]

88 & 89 come from Bowler which we already list in the bibliography, what are the relevant page numbers for those? The refs should just be "Bowler, p. X" or "Bowler, pp. X–Y" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Erm. I've no idea. I don't have the book and it seems Google Books doesn't show page numbers. Here, for example, is the Duncan page: --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
And here's "no money": --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hm, that needs to be fixed. Not sure if I have a paper copy either... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I do, I just found it. I'll take a look tonight. Off to read stories to kids. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Smashing and lovely. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
You, old boy, are a DUDE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What happened to that "this user will not rest until Alf Ramsey is an FA" box? Well, since it now is (bar the paperwork), I guess you can rest :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Next up[edit]

I'm conscious that with The Beat and Ramsey, we've been a bit Tractor-centric, so if you'd like to try to get some budgie up to snuff for GAN (like Roberts) then we should make that our next focus. Whaddyareckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Let the gap-toothed fun begin. I have his book, but it's hard to use as source material, as it's a diary of a season, with reminiscences thrown in. He's quite a prolific pundit online, which also adds possible source material. Identify where you think there are gaps (I'm too close on this one) and I'll see if I can ... find dentures for them? And Bird is a bit of a hero of mine. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Now let's hit it. Ramsey FA, no excuses for getting Roberts to at least GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Smashing. Can you remind me what the referencing problem is with his stats? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't recall, and a quick look at them now seems to make me think the answer is: nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Groovy --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat[edit]

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Best regards, Maxim(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dweller - I'm a bit confused by your closing edit to this chat [1] as you don't seem to express a view. Do you agree with the majority that there is a consensus? I presume you do but I think it would be best if you stated it. Avi did make it clear that this is what we were hoping for [2]. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion where, after I made the same point [3], Xeno opined and closed the discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi WJBscribe I didn't think it necessary because I found clear consensus on the opinions already expressed. If you think it's helpful, I'll be happy to add mine to it. It will not muddy the waters. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am offended by your over-step[edit]

I find this edit of yours beyond your remit. As I understand it, the RfA in question fell below the discretionary range. The actions of the bureaucrats involved is a break with the community and actively harms our administrative processes. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Chris troutman. I think you'd be less offended, or even not offended at all if you better understood the discretionary range. The power of the Crats is extremely well defined and we are a rather conservative bunch, and I'm one of the more conservative ones in the group. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Dweller, please note that an Arb case request has also been filed about this. Deary me, what a colossal waste of time! The irony is, of course, that RexxS has done more good for the Wikipedia than most dissenters put together. Hope this doesn't drain too much of your time going forward... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dweller, thank you for doing this. It was about time that someone put a stop to the tyranny of the nitpicking minority that has ruined countless RfAs. Biblio (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    +1 - you done good, Dweller. 🏆 RexxS is supposed to be an admin. I don't want to get all mushy so that's it from me. "Cheers!" 🍻 Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for being lenient with me. :) BLP for someone dead 10 years? I don't think so. But the next time someone who appears to be Light Current shows up, I'll take it to an admin. Maybe to one of the admins who has already chastised that IP-hopper for continuing to ask the same question over and over, about the term "classic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I could have merely posted this link:[4]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Now we see the IP hopper obliterating that section and another one too.[5]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I try to support Wikipedians. There are too few of us. Not enough people round here realise that our people are the most precious thing this project has. Yes, hand trolls or apparent trolls on to admins. I don't think it's your specialism - answering Limeys' questions about Amurrcan sports is much more suited to you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've dealt with trolls off and on for well over 10 years, and for some of them, at least, I am very familiar with their patterns. Those are not Wikipedians. And having to deal with some of them is where I first ran across WP:ANI. I'd been here for a year or more before I knew ANI existed. Would that I had never had to know about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Non-rhotic "more", at least in the Liverpool accent, sounds like "Moe" (or "mow"). Moe also being the name of one-third of the Three Stooges, whose films were also a big revival hit around that time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a (Relatively) Small Request[edit]

Hello Dweller, I have been working on expanding the article on E. Elias Merhige's 1990 experimental horror film Begotten for quite some time now via a separate userspace draft. My goal is to get it up to FA status but I really need someone to review it for me and give me some pointers on what I need to add or improve BEFORE I finally submit it for GA and later FA status or maybe even give me a list of names o0f who else could help me expand it. I know that might be a tall order to ask of you considering you are not as active as you once were but I just thought I'd put it out there. If you are unable to do so please let me know of any other users I could ask. You can find the link to the article here: Begotten (Revision Draft)--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember seeing/responding to this, so I guess I didn't. Paleface Jack, have you read my essay on the subject? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Raps, Ehrenbach.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember.....[edit]

posting issues on old FAC talk pages? If not fixed and any were particularly bad, would you be okay to post them at WP:FAR? I feel a bit hamstrung as I am the coordinator so if I nominate any I am sort of wearing two hats.....if not don't worry, just thinking of getting things kick-started Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you mean! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, from User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page, were there pages that you alerted on the talk page that the page was below par or had issues? If so, and they are still problematic, would you be happy to list at WP:FAR? If you never did this, then ignore this message....Just trying to get the latter moving...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II v. Queen Elizabeth[edit]

Hi there, thanks for attempting to clarify the Herbert Maryon hook. I think, however, that "Queen Elizabeth" may be clearer than just "Elizabeth II." How about "Queen Elizabeth II" as a compromise? Cheers, —Usernameunique (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sympathetic, but we don't refer to Donald Trump as President Donald Trump. There's a reason why her article is at Elizabeth II. She may be my queen, but she isn't everyone's. Anyone who is confused as to who Elizabeth II is can click the wikilink. What I was fixing was an out and out error (referring to her as "Queen Elizabeth", who was this person). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Dweller. I don't think the Trump example is apposite, because part of the reason to use "Queen" here is that people don't usually say "Elizabeth two" in common parlance, and that Elizabeth is a common name; when someone says "Donald Trump" it unmistakably refers to one person, so the prefatory "President" is not needed. Indeed, a quick search of Wikipedia shows 26,328 pages that refer to "Queen Elizabeth," against only 16,277 that refer to "Elizabeth II." Using "Queen" is simply a signal that she is a queen, not that she is a particular person's queen. Finally, if we're relying on people clicking the link for clarity, that would seem to be what you were trying to avoid at first, for you termed Queen Elizabeth "[a]n Easter Egg link." Best, --Usernameunique (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm open to this. Any talk page stalkers want to chime in? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Any other thoughts on this? Personally, I think the interplay between "Queen" and "back room boy" adds an element of humor as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you'd better look at the archives at Talk:Elizabeth II, and possibly be in touch with WP:WikiProject United Kingdom, before you even remotely start thinking about something like this. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
StevenJ81, it would be more helpful to point to particular discussions (and/or to share your own take), than to a page with 39 separate archives, and to an entire WikiProject. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Context is important, eg:

Sentry: "Halt! Who comes there?"
Chief Warder: "The keys".
Sentry: "Whose keys?"
Chief Warder: "Queen Elizabeth's keys".
Sentry: "Pass Queen Elizabeth's Keys. All's well".

I doubt many readers would think Good Queen Bess would have been handing out OBE gongs. But this nicety is not something to get too worked up. Hope all is well with one and all. (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Long since off mainpage. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Kornblumen, Ehrenbach.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for article improvements in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Not done much, but thank you anyway --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


I'm not a massive fan of templates, so I'll just use a brief personalised message to say I sent you an email, and would be interested in your feedback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

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.Kosack (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Norwich kit[edit]

Your welcome I found it at a website called Historical Football Kits. And got the pattern from a old Cameroon international kit. 16:19, 9 July (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9616:2800:2928:24D8:E56D:8C3C (talk)

You've got mail[edit]

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.Katietalk 14:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Lilien, Botanischer Garten Münster.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat[edit]

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for a current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi Dweller. Apparently you sent me an email, however it appears I still have a now defunct email address from years ago still connected to this account. I've now updated it if you want to sent them over again! Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not made any comments[edit]

directly about AGK. I made a comment about you responding to his criticism of you and not responding to mine or others. Please rectify the misleading impression you have given that I have left revolting comments "about" AGK. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite content with the accuracy of my words. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this: "Your comments about AGK are revolting and I won't respond to them" clearly implies that I have left a revolting remark about AGK. You know that not to be the case. My remark was to you - and was certainly not revolting. When I read it I had hoped you had simply made a mistake in phrasing and emphasis. Leaving it as it is is, as you well know, a beacon for anyone wishing to pile-on. If they have time, I would welcome @AGK:s view on this and whether they think my comment is (a) about them and if so, (b) revolting. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Your comment was that I was behaving differently because of who AGK is. That's a revolting comment. And it's about AGK. If anyone should be reverting themselves it's you. I am sure you are very upset that I found consensus to be different from your interpretation, but that is normal. In any Cratchat, by definition, at least 25% of the !voters will be disappointed, but twisting words and then casting aspersions is unnecessary. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I found it to be hasty (which you appeared to say yourself) and based on numbers rather than reasoning (which others including AGK raised concern about). I have read the rationales of 4 others - they seem well balanced. So your decision is certainly consistent. It remains a fact that I pinged you in the Math section. It is also a fact that you explained your rationale to AGK. You could have responded to me there, but you didn't. It is not clear why you have now responded in such an inflammatory way, in another section, 2 days later. Clearly my vote counting remark has antagonised you and I apologise for that, but you can hardly claim your decision to be one of your finest moments in effective communication either. It is not your usual style, as I recall it. Best. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to re-admit that my initial post was brief and hasty. The thinking behind it was far from brief and hasty. I think Crats have a duty to respond to RfX closures swiftly. It's unfair on the candidate to linger and I had followed the RfA through its course and was very familiar with it, meaning it was easy for me to give my opinion on the consensus swiftly. I knew I wouldn't be back onwiki for at least 12 hours and I actually thought at the time it would be more than double that. Look, I'm happy to extend you the benefit of the doubt, literally. Rereading my post, I suppose it does have an appearance of vote-counting, although I thought (think) I'd said enough to explain it was not merely that. But you're wrong on the other matter. I didn't explain my rationale "to AGK". A number of people on the talk page, and one Crat on the main page, had discussed the weight of unexplained supports. I added a note about it on the main discussion page, and when I did, AGK thanked me. That is all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for the RfA nomination. I regret that it was unsuccessful, but your support was greatly appreciated. I hope you don't feel that your reputation was tarnished buy the nomination. The RfA was unusual in some ways. Most unsuccessful RfAs see supporters defect; here they remained form. And most RfA, even successful ones, see a piling on of opposes towards the end. Here, even though it was clearly doomed, support picked up towards the end. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 That's very kind of you, thank you. I think it was a rough ride. I think it was a bit of a mixed bag - you got some fair criticism in there for some of your recent actions, which raised my eyebrows and seemed to solidify the expected opposition anyone with a chequered history could expect. What was unfortunate was the wording you used in the Fram debate which really boomeranged onto you, especially because nerves are still so raw on that subject. My advice would be to keep plugging away, forget about adminship for a while, keep doing what you do well and reflect on some of the comments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Admiral, Lorch.jpg
red admiral
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving articles in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Gerda, you're inexhaustible. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you but I don't deserve it. I'm exhausted by a deletion discussion with COI suspicion on top, by an RfC I wanted to ignore but was encouraged and went, only to receive "untrue" in response, and the daily nagging because of less than perfect wording of DYK hooks. BUT: glorious music to come, singing! Congrats to 11 years of bureaucratship. Can you solve the LH vanishing? I know she was reported missing already in July 2018, but probably just for retirement. I'm sure she wasn't renamed as vanished recently, but when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Eleven years as a 'crat[edit]

Wikipedia bureaucrat.png
Wishing Dweller a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary
Wikipedia bureaucrat.png Wishing Dweller a very happy bureaucratship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the tradition is for the honouree to buy the first round. –xenotalk 16:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Gosh. 11 years? Seriously? Can't believe it. Thanks, Chris troutman and CAPTAIN RAJU. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm coming up on ten years, myself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Drinks are on me[edit]

The Three Horseshoes Bourne End - - 26775.jpg

Further to Xeno's comment just above, hey Acalamari, Avraham, Bibliomaniac15, Cecropia, DeltaQuad, Deskana, Maxim, MBisanz, Nihonjoe, Pakaran, Primefac, UninvitedCompany, Useight, Warofdreams, Worm That Turned, Xaosflux, of course you, Xeno and any former Crats stalking this page, there's some money behind the bar, come on and have one or two to celebrate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

MAN ALIVE, what about former 'crats?? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Hang on, I re-read the invitation. Mine's a double G&T on the rocks old bean. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This former crat is always around for a drink... WJBscribe (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Further to Amakuru's comment, I've just chucked more money at the barman and I'm extending the invitation to all talkpage stalkers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yay! I'll just sail on in up the canal then. Looks like a very tranquil spot.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Awesome, Dweller! :D As for the drink, an Old Mout Cider Pineapple & Raspberry, please - they're delicious! Acalamari 23:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sounds lovely! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just adding my congrats on your anniversary D. I'll have a pint of the local cask ale please. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    Solid, dependable, traditional, great choice. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's very kind of you, but since it is barely breakfast time here I'll settle for a small glass of Tarragon flavoured Chacha. Yes that's the green one in the clear but very thick glass decanter. ϢereSpielChequers 04:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    Intriguing! Never heard of that. I might look into that, some time. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations on the anniversary, and what a very civilised offer! I'll have a bitter, thanks, which is no reflection on my experience of bureaucratship! Warofdreams talk 19:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! -- Avi (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, a week and a half late! Maxim(talk) 01:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Fourteen years of editing![edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Dweller. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, 14 years. When I started here, I was only an old man. Thanks for the greeting, Chris. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

CAPTAIN RAJU, I've already been thanked (see the section just before this one) and, erm, it's very far from my first anniversary (see the section just before this one)! But thanks anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Herbstzeitlose, Neuhof.jpg
meadow saffron

.. for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)