Pls see them - there are a few newies! But not newbies... Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
... and that was the intent!
re: You might want to add the comments you mentioned to me to the page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 3 -- Dweller 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply you did that on purpose - as you said, in such a long RFA, individual objections are hard to miss. But I don't feel comfortable supporting his adminship nomination because I see no evidence that he's truly improved. Yours, >Radiant< 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see exactly where he or you state the answer. Could you direct me directly to the thing you're referring to? I'm not thinking straight. :P Jack ?! 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I always use Twinkle or Friendly for my warnings, anyway, so it's absolutely easy-peasy!-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dweller, Sorry to have alarmed you. All will become clear. Please bear with me. By tomorrow this time. Dloh cierekim 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
cool. Sorry for upsetting so many people. Dloh cierekim 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) And now, you have or will mail. :) Dloh cierekim 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Dloh cierekim 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll put you back, then, I simply didn't get it earlier. I had some heavy sweeping to do on that page. >Radiant< 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Although you have stated that you don't believe the article is near FA quality, I would prefer it if you did look over the rest of the article, and how it could be improved. No matter what, you have been a big help in helping me improve the article. Dav nel 03 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I for one liked your user page... and mourn its sad departure from this world. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a little more... Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not upset with your decision at all, I'd just encourage you to examine the vindictive records of some of the current arbiters alongside the record of Giano's occasional "take no prisoners" approach. I'd stand his record up against Bauder's or UC's any day of the week. Best regards, Mr Which ??? 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you'd delete X-Net for me. If you take a look at the history, you'll see that the last edit to the article was to nominate it for speedy, last May. Seems that somehow it got nominated without the catagory being added, so it slipped the net. The reason it was nominated seems sound, but, more to the point, it's remained uncontested for around seven months. I reckon that's pleanty of time for someone to have contested it if they were going to :P. Cheers, TheIslander 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the dislocation is incorrect, but the reason given for Barnes' leaving the military in Smith's biography was the trade skills and no mention was made of the shoulder dislocation at all. To my mind, the trade skills seems more likely and the two are not really compatible. It is safe to say that Sid was not the military type and was looking for reasons to return to civillian life. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied - I think you may have misunderstood the situation, though.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd have thought Porcupine could have guessed you live in the UK - there can't be many overseas supporters of the Canaries ☺ (declaration: as a Magpie I obviously know bog-all about football, but can we have Glenn Roeder back, please Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 10:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no, didn't get your mail because I'm not in work today. Will be tomorrow though. In the meantime I'll do a bit of work on your article, and in doing so I'll be able to get an opinion at the AFD, although right now it looks pretty obviously like a keeper... The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
As I see you are mentoring Porcupine you can tell him that I don't appreciate being put on his special watchlist [1] for a edit disagreement on Sound Of Drums as I discovered when I accidentally clicked his contrib tab instead of his talk page and noticed User:Porcupine/Watchlist (Other users) as his first edit after I had reverted the Sound of Drums a second time.
I have responded to this on my talkpage.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. You wrote to me saying the following: "Hello. I have many concerns about this article. Please take note of the tags I'm about to place on it. In the meantime, welcome".
First of all let me say I'm mildly annoyed at having my work changed, but I can also say I am totally new to editing on Wikipedia (although I have used it many time). So I freely admit I don't really understand the rules. So if you can help me to get this article in the within the "rules", whatever they are, I'd appreciate it.
Should I be posting this here or on the talk page of the actual article?
Here are my comments about the points you've made:
1. Firstly, about neutrality. I admit I know him, but I tried to write the article in the neutral tone you'd expect of an encyclopedia. I haven't removed the neutrality tag you inserted, because it says not to until the dispute is resolved. So I'm trying to resolve the dispute :) I have thoroughly read the
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page, and have changed the title of the article back to refer to him as "gambling expert" rather than "gambler", since you just used the POV tag and not the POV-title tag. Scott has been accepted by the Courts in Australia as an expert witness, writes on gambling matters in the media, and also appears in the media as a gambling expert. I think that's good enough to refer to him as a "gambling expert". It's not just my POV, there are many independent 3rd parties that clearly accept him as an expert. Let me know if you have a dissenting opinion on that.
I also note that on the
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page it says: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." I note that you haven't made any such note. Can you please tell me why you think the article is not NPOV? Now that I have expanded and somewhat re-written the article, do you still dispute the neutrality of the article?
2. About Andrew Scott's notability, he's pretty bloody notable! In fact I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about him, which is why I decided to write one. He's been on national television in Australia many times, and gets trotted out by the current affairs shows whenever they have a story on gambling, there's been numerous magazine articles and newspaper stories about him. Have a look at this page:
http://www.blackjack-masters.com/printmedia.php which shows photographic evidence of 22 separate print media appearances in Australia and New Zealand. I personally know that is just the tip of the iceberg. I've also cited a newspaper article that both establishes his credibility and shows that casinos don't like him. He's probably the most well-known advantage play gambler in Australia.
3. About renaming the page from "Andrew W Scott (gambling expert)" to "Andrew W Scott (gambler)", I find that particularly annoying. Mr Scott is more than a mere "gambler". Most gamblers lose, Mr Scott wins and has taught thousands of others to win. He's been involved with gambling for 21 years, and not just as a gambler. In fact I happen to know there was once a period of more than a year that he didn't place a single bet, but ran his school mentoring other advanatage players and appearing in the media discussing gambling. So does that make him a gambler or a gambling expert? I think a gambling expert. He has been accepted by courts in Australia to appear as an expert witness on issues of gambling. He is a the Gambling Correspondent for Crikey, Australia's largest independent online media outlet. He's written gambling articles for MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19839900/,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19801517/,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19795871/. In fact, he does not consider himself a gambler, he considers himself a "professional blackjack player" which actually doesn't really involve gambling. The reason I chose the expression "gambling expert" is that the average person understands casino play as gambling, without making a distinction between losing play and advantage play. If you are unaware of the whole culture of winning gamblers, have a look at this page:
Advantage gambling
4. About asking me for a citation for him getting the highest mark in Tasmania for Accounting, how the hell do I prove that? I read it once. But it would be pretty embarrassing to ask the guy for proof as if I didn't believe it!
5. About the rumors that he's won more than $15m in over 100 casinos - he freely admits he's played in more than 100 casinos, but is cagey about the exact amount that he's won. I thought I covered it by saying "it's rumored". Do I have to prove there's a rumor??
6. About the book he's allegedly writing, you're saying I need a citation that a rumor exists that he's writing a book? How on earth can I do that? Do I need to prove he's "yet to officially acknowledge this"??
7. I have deleted the tag at the top about not having references (because the article now does).
8. I carefully read the instructions in the tag about notability. It said "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability". I believe I've now done this, so have removed the tag. Feel free to re-insert it if you think I've yet to establish Scott's notability.
Anyway, sorry if the tone of this was a little argumentative, it's just a little demoralizing to post something that you thought was pretty good as your first article and have someone come along and find all these faults with it :( Jlp35 ( talk) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
My response to your response:
You wrote:
Hi. Sorry it's taken me some time to reply... You made a lot of points and I want to respond fully.
Much of what you asked is covered in the links I posted above in your welcome message, but I'll assume you've not had a chance to read it yet, or you're overwhelmed by quite how much there is to learn when you first start out at Wikipedia. We're quite a formal community and it's a little offputting to a newbie, but bear with it.
OK, into the responses. I'm going to break it down point by point. They won't fit with your numbering (sorry) but never mind.
Here are my thoughts. I'll stick with your numbering.
So as far as I can see, the only outstanding issue is the neutrality dispute tag. I don't want to remove it until you implicitly tell me you agree. In fact, even better if you remove it :) Do you still dispute the neutrality?
Jlp35 ( talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
<boink>mail</boink>... The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, technically I don't leave until first thing tomorrow but I'll be off-wiki around 5pm tonight for the foreseeable.... don't feel bad... The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes.Thanks for the quick response and Porcupine's response about it . Garda40 ( talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we crossed supporting paths for your nom of TT recently, which impressed me. I hope I was able to help a little for the reading of it next time, if nothing else.
I noticed your
Giano II non-vote statement of "moral support". If I read you correctly, your views are not significantly different from mine, or indeed, from many of the voted opposes. I hope you will be interested that I have provided in my vote #296, a public logic enabling uncertain opposes/others to switch to "some message only". (Please reply here if desired)
Milo
07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Support as message compromise The "list" here has likeable, reasonable, respected, and/or powerful users on both sides, so uncertain opposes/others are now free to switch and support Giano as some message only. Per references, all but certainly he will not be appointed, so his Arbcom abilities simply don't matter. [index.php?title=User:Milomedes&action=edit Milo] 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It happens! I remember on another article claiming Bradman made his 334 at Lord's and feeling quite silly for a while when a friendly reveiewer gently corrected me on something that I did know and still got wrong. I have added some more on Barnes's wife and Scotland on the talk page. The family went to Scotland when he went to England, stayed there when he returned for the 1946-47 series and stayed in Scotland while the 1948 tour took place. Anyway, it might not be late there, but it is here and I had best go and get some sleep. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit protection on the above user's talk page is due to be lifted today. Not a prospect which inspires anyone with a lot of joy, I know, but thought it might be worth a reminder. John Carter ( talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, early evening in Bangkok, all good besides a touch too much sun and Singha beer. Anyway, I did a stoopid thing with my email so I'll try and let you know in the near future. It's all about revealing a bit too much thanks to an Out of Office thing. Anyway, I'll try to let you know. Other than that, all is good. It seems Ipswich won again and your boys got a creditable draw. Hurrah. Anyway, more when I get a bit of bandwidth. (Note, it was definitely me that did the one off revert on NCFC the other night. That's using wi-fi in BKK with an iPod Touch. Techno or what?!) The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Was there discussion somewhere about this edit? ( [3]) Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I know a bit. I'll have a squiz later. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: Looks in better shape than Marcus Trescothick or Arthur Morris did when they were at FAC. Should get through with some more tweaking. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a bit to Loxton over a few days in a rather mechanical way: all taken from the various Wisdens I have around me while suffering from flu. It could do with a read-through and a liven-up and there are patently some missing sections about his Australian football career, his political career, and his role in cricket admin. More on his personality would also be good. But I hope there's now a start. Johnlp ( talk) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what MOS is, but the reason why I changed it was to keep consistent with the other A-league profile pages. eg. Craig Moore, Danny Tiatto or John Aloisi
So I'm guessing that it's fine? Blackjanedavey ( talk) 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, despite a crappy four and a half hour bus journey I'm still alive and enjoying my trip. First signs of a cloud today (makes ya sick?) so I'm off to float down the Nam Song on an inner tube while I sip beer. Hope you're ok and all is well in your world. More soon. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch man. I'll get to it asap!
-- Pbroks13 07:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS? GordyB ( talk) 17:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Need your advice...
Please see User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Coaching/Phoenix-wiki#Ready or not?.
The Transhumanist 03:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing Shaktism. The issues you raised about POV will be soon addressed. Til then, if you feel that any of your suggestions are fulfilled, please strike them. Also can you elaborate on any other MOS issues. Thank you.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, you wrote all... and compliments for the article shaktism :) Brískelly Talk 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And happy 2008!!! Brískelly Talk 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I managed it—without hurting detail or narrative outline—but I've reduced the Ming Dynasty article from 102 KB to 96 KB! I hope that 96 KB is acceptable.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
With luck, I should be able to upload it this evening {Australian time) or early tomorrow morning. I have a Commons account, but I have my doubts that the image I have in mind would be suitable for Commons as I doubt it would be freely licenced. The photograph belongs to the Barnes family and was taken by an unknown photographer sometime around 1970. {{ PD-Australia}} seems to preclude this being in the Public Domain. Any advice you have on its status would be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The other one would be fair use I think and require uploading at Wikipedia. When uploaded I may need some assistance with the rationale to keep BetaCommandBot off my case. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken on 3 new coachees (see the VC template), with another potential coming on-board Jan 8th. D.M.N. has been through 3 RfAs, and is in for a rough ride, I think. :-) I've grilled him using your method, to get an idea of his experience and areas of activity. I'd appreciate it if you'd look his coaching page over to see if there are any questions I've missed. The Transhumanist 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Two things:
Cheers! -- Dweller ( talk) 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Re Miller - that's great. If you could make a Commons cat for him and bung the appropriate thingy on the article, I'll take a peek. I'll try and leave you the 46-47 series. Finally, if you'd like to turn this redlink blue with any articles or project pages you'd like monitored, I'll do my best. Let me know when you go and return. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude, just popped by to say hello and to let the wiki-verse know I'm still alive, despite having had to wash a 40 year old Asian elephant in the Nam Tha river. Another three days in Laos before we start our journey back, with a three day stop over in Bangkok (gas masks to the ready) and then home. I see your Budgies are doing ok while my lot abjectly refuse to get anything away from home... What a weird season so far. And as for that Scottish chap dying virtually on the pitch, terrible. Anyway, more soon I'm sure, everything okay with you? The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Pls see them - there are a few newies! But not newbies... Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
... and that was the intent!
re: You might want to add the comments you mentioned to me to the page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 3 -- Dweller 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply you did that on purpose - as you said, in such a long RFA, individual objections are hard to miss. But I don't feel comfortable supporting his adminship nomination because I see no evidence that he's truly improved. Yours, >Radiant< 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see exactly where he or you state the answer. Could you direct me directly to the thing you're referring to? I'm not thinking straight. :P Jack ?! 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I always use Twinkle or Friendly for my warnings, anyway, so it's absolutely easy-peasy!-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Dweller, Sorry to have alarmed you. All will become clear. Please bear with me. By tomorrow this time. Dloh cierekim 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
cool. Sorry for upsetting so many people. Dloh cierekim 15:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) And now, you have or will mail. :) Dloh cierekim 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Dloh cierekim 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll put you back, then, I simply didn't get it earlier. I had some heavy sweeping to do on that page. >Radiant< 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Although you have stated that you don't believe the article is near FA quality, I would prefer it if you did look over the rest of the article, and how it could be improved. No matter what, you have been a big help in helping me improve the article. Dav nel 03 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I for one liked your user page... and mourn its sad departure from this world. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've requested a little more... Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not upset with your decision at all, I'd just encourage you to examine the vindictive records of some of the current arbiters alongside the record of Giano's occasional "take no prisoners" approach. I'd stand his record up against Bauder's or UC's any day of the week. Best regards, Mr Which ??? 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you'd delete X-Net for me. If you take a look at the history, you'll see that the last edit to the article was to nominate it for speedy, last May. Seems that somehow it got nominated without the catagory being added, so it slipped the net. The reason it was nominated seems sound, but, more to the point, it's remained uncontested for around seven months. I reckon that's pleanty of time for someone to have contested it if they were going to :P. Cheers, TheIslander 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the dislocation is incorrect, but the reason given for Barnes' leaving the military in Smith's biography was the trade skills and no mention was made of the shoulder dislocation at all. To my mind, the trade skills seems more likely and the two are not really compatible. It is safe to say that Sid was not the military type and was looking for reasons to return to civillian life. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 11:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Replied - I think you may have misunderstood the situation, though.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd have thought Porcupine could have guessed you live in the UK - there can't be many overseas supporters of the Canaries ☺ (declaration: as a Magpie I obviously know bog-all about football, but can we have Glenn Roeder back, please Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 10:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no, didn't get your mail because I'm not in work today. Will be tomorrow though. In the meantime I'll do a bit of work on your article, and in doing so I'll be able to get an opinion at the AFD, although right now it looks pretty obviously like a keeper... The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
As I see you are mentoring Porcupine you can tell him that I don't appreciate being put on his special watchlist [1] for a edit disagreement on Sound Of Drums as I discovered when I accidentally clicked his contrib tab instead of his talk page and noticed User:Porcupine/Watchlist (Other users) as his first edit after I had reverted the Sound of Drums a second time.
I have responded to this on my talkpage.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. You wrote to me saying the following: "Hello. I have many concerns about this article. Please take note of the tags I'm about to place on it. In the meantime, welcome".
First of all let me say I'm mildly annoyed at having my work changed, but I can also say I am totally new to editing on Wikipedia (although I have used it many time). So I freely admit I don't really understand the rules. So if you can help me to get this article in the within the "rules", whatever they are, I'd appreciate it.
Should I be posting this here or on the talk page of the actual article?
Here are my comments about the points you've made:
1. Firstly, about neutrality. I admit I know him, but I tried to write the article in the neutral tone you'd expect of an encyclopedia. I haven't removed the neutrality tag you inserted, because it says not to until the dispute is resolved. So I'm trying to resolve the dispute :) I have thoroughly read the
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page, and have changed the title of the article back to refer to him as "gambling expert" rather than "gambler", since you just used the POV tag and not the POV-title tag. Scott has been accepted by the Courts in Australia as an expert witness, writes on gambling matters in the media, and also appears in the media as a gambling expert. I think that's good enough to refer to him as a "gambling expert". It's not just my POV, there are many independent 3rd parties that clearly accept him as an expert. Let me know if you have a dissenting opinion on that.
I also note that on the
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page it says: "If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." I note that you haven't made any such note. Can you please tell me why you think the article is not NPOV? Now that I have expanded and somewhat re-written the article, do you still dispute the neutrality of the article?
2. About Andrew Scott's notability, he's pretty bloody notable! In fact I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about him, which is why I decided to write one. He's been on national television in Australia many times, and gets trotted out by the current affairs shows whenever they have a story on gambling, there's been numerous magazine articles and newspaper stories about him. Have a look at this page:
http://www.blackjack-masters.com/printmedia.php which shows photographic evidence of 22 separate print media appearances in Australia and New Zealand. I personally know that is just the tip of the iceberg. I've also cited a newspaper article that both establishes his credibility and shows that casinos don't like him. He's probably the most well-known advantage play gambler in Australia.
3. About renaming the page from "Andrew W Scott (gambling expert)" to "Andrew W Scott (gambler)", I find that particularly annoying. Mr Scott is more than a mere "gambler". Most gamblers lose, Mr Scott wins and has taught thousands of others to win. He's been involved with gambling for 21 years, and not just as a gambler. In fact I happen to know there was once a period of more than a year that he didn't place a single bet, but ran his school mentoring other advanatage players and appearing in the media discussing gambling. So does that make him a gambler or a gambling expert? I think a gambling expert. He has been accepted by courts in Australia to appear as an expert witness on issues of gambling. He is a the Gambling Correspondent for Crikey, Australia's largest independent online media outlet. He's written gambling articles for MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19839900/,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19801517/,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19795871/. In fact, he does not consider himself a gambler, he considers himself a "professional blackjack player" which actually doesn't really involve gambling. The reason I chose the expression "gambling expert" is that the average person understands casino play as gambling, without making a distinction between losing play and advantage play. If you are unaware of the whole culture of winning gamblers, have a look at this page:
Advantage gambling
4. About asking me for a citation for him getting the highest mark in Tasmania for Accounting, how the hell do I prove that? I read it once. But it would be pretty embarrassing to ask the guy for proof as if I didn't believe it!
5. About the rumors that he's won more than $15m in over 100 casinos - he freely admits he's played in more than 100 casinos, but is cagey about the exact amount that he's won. I thought I covered it by saying "it's rumored". Do I have to prove there's a rumor??
6. About the book he's allegedly writing, you're saying I need a citation that a rumor exists that he's writing a book? How on earth can I do that? Do I need to prove he's "yet to officially acknowledge this"??
7. I have deleted the tag at the top about not having references (because the article now does).
8. I carefully read the instructions in the tag about notability. It said "please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability". I believe I've now done this, so have removed the tag. Feel free to re-insert it if you think I've yet to establish Scott's notability.
Anyway, sorry if the tone of this was a little argumentative, it's just a little demoralizing to post something that you thought was pretty good as your first article and have someone come along and find all these faults with it :( Jlp35 ( talk) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
My response to your response:
You wrote:
Hi. Sorry it's taken me some time to reply... You made a lot of points and I want to respond fully.
Much of what you asked is covered in the links I posted above in your welcome message, but I'll assume you've not had a chance to read it yet, or you're overwhelmed by quite how much there is to learn when you first start out at Wikipedia. We're quite a formal community and it's a little offputting to a newbie, but bear with it.
OK, into the responses. I'm going to break it down point by point. They won't fit with your numbering (sorry) but never mind.
Here are my thoughts. I'll stick with your numbering.
So as far as I can see, the only outstanding issue is the neutrality dispute tag. I don't want to remove it until you implicitly tell me you agree. In fact, even better if you remove it :) Do you still dispute the neutrality?
Jlp35 ( talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
<boink>mail</boink>... The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, technically I don't leave until first thing tomorrow but I'll be off-wiki around 5pm tonight for the foreseeable.... don't feel bad... The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes.Thanks for the quick response and Porcupine's response about it . Garda40 ( talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we crossed supporting paths for your nom of TT recently, which impressed me. I hope I was able to help a little for the reading of it next time, if nothing else.
I noticed your
Giano II non-vote statement of "moral support". If I read you correctly, your views are not significantly different from mine, or indeed, from many of the voted opposes. I hope you will be interested that I have provided in my vote #296, a public logic enabling uncertain opposes/others to switch to "some message only". (Please reply here if desired)
Milo
07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Support as message compromise The "list" here has likeable, reasonable, respected, and/or powerful users on both sides, so uncertain opposes/others are now free to switch and support Giano as some message only. Per references, all but certainly he will not be appointed, so his Arbcom abilities simply don't matter. [index.php?title=User:Milomedes&action=edit Milo] 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It happens! I remember on another article claiming Bradman made his 334 at Lord's and feeling quite silly for a while when a friendly reveiewer gently corrected me on something that I did know and still got wrong. I have added some more on Barnes's wife and Scotland on the talk page. The family went to Scotland when he went to England, stayed there when he returned for the 1946-47 series and stayed in Scotland while the 1948 tour took place. Anyway, it might not be late there, but it is here and I had best go and get some sleep. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit protection on the above user's talk page is due to be lifted today. Not a prospect which inspires anyone with a lot of joy, I know, but thought it might be worth a reminder. John Carter ( talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, early evening in Bangkok, all good besides a touch too much sun and Singha beer. Anyway, I did a stoopid thing with my email so I'll try and let you know in the near future. It's all about revealing a bit too much thanks to an Out of Office thing. Anyway, I'll try to let you know. Other than that, all is good. It seems Ipswich won again and your boys got a creditable draw. Hurrah. Anyway, more when I get a bit of bandwidth. (Note, it was definitely me that did the one off revert on NCFC the other night. That's using wi-fi in BKK with an iPod Touch. Techno or what?!) The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Was there discussion somewhere about this edit? ( [3]) Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I know a bit. I'll have a squiz later. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: Looks in better shape than Marcus Trescothick or Arthur Morris did when they were at FAC. Should get through with some more tweaking. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a bit to Loxton over a few days in a rather mechanical way: all taken from the various Wisdens I have around me while suffering from flu. It could do with a read-through and a liven-up and there are patently some missing sections about his Australian football career, his political career, and his role in cricket admin. More on his personality would also be good. But I hope there's now a start. Johnlp ( talk) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what MOS is, but the reason why I changed it was to keep consistent with the other A-league profile pages. eg. Craig Moore, Danny Tiatto or John Aloisi
So I'm guessing that it's fine? Blackjanedavey ( talk) 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, despite a crappy four and a half hour bus journey I'm still alive and enjoying my trip. First signs of a cloud today (makes ya sick?) so I'm off to float down the Nam Song on an inner tube while I sip beer. Hope you're ok and all is well in your world. More soon. The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch man. I'll get to it asap!
-- Pbroks13 07:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references to the article. Are there any other issues with the article or is this the only thing preventing FAS? GordyB ( talk) 17:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Need your advice...
Please see User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Coaching/Phoenix-wiki#Ready or not?.
The Transhumanist 03:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing Shaktism. The issues you raised about POV will be soon addressed. Til then, if you feel that any of your suggestions are fulfilled, please strike them. Also can you elaborate on any other MOS issues. Thank you.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, you wrote all... and compliments for the article shaktism :) Brískelly Talk 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And happy 2008!!! Brískelly Talk 18:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how I managed it—without hurting detail or narrative outline—but I've reduced the Ming Dynasty article from 102 KB to 96 KB! I hope that 96 KB is acceptable.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
With luck, I should be able to upload it this evening {Australian time) or early tomorrow morning. I have a Commons account, but I have my doubts that the image I have in mind would be suitable for Commons as I doubt it would be freely licenced. The photograph belongs to the Barnes family and was taken by an unknown photographer sometime around 1970. {{ PD-Australia}} seems to preclude this being in the Public Domain. Any advice you have on its status would be appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The other one would be fair use I think and require uploading at Wikipedia. When uploaded I may need some assistance with the rationale to keep BetaCommandBot off my case. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 12:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken on 3 new coachees (see the VC template), with another potential coming on-board Jan 8th. D.M.N. has been through 3 RfAs, and is in for a rough ride, I think. :-) I've grilled him using your method, to get an idea of his experience and areas of activity. I'd appreciate it if you'd look his coaching page over to see if there are any questions I've missed. The Transhumanist 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Two things:
Cheers! -- Dweller ( talk) 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Re Miller - that's great. If you could make a Commons cat for him and bung the appropriate thingy on the article, I'll take a peek. I'll try and leave you the 46-47 series. Finally, if you'd like to turn this redlink blue with any articles or project pages you'd like monitored, I'll do my best. Let me know when you go and return. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude, just popped by to say hello and to let the wiki-verse know I'm still alive, despite having had to wash a 40 year old Asian elephant in the Nam Tha river. Another three days in Laos before we start our journey back, with a three day stop over in Bangkok (gas masks to the ready) and then home. I see your Budgies are doing ok while my lot abjectly refuse to get anything away from home... What a weird season so far. And as for that Scottish chap dying virtually on the pitch, terrible. Anyway, more soon I'm sure, everything okay with you? The Rambling Man on tour ( talk) 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)