User talk:The Rambling Man

Merry Christmas

Merry Chistmas to you too Rambling Man. :) Orashmatash (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Norwich F.C.

Hello mate, I'm translating Norwich F.C. article into italian, and I've found a problem: many of the references doesn't work (especially the ones by the official website), or are not updated. I saw you featured the article, so i was asking if you could solve this problem. Speek you soon, --Andrea 93 (msg) 08:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You could try User:Dweller for the references as he found most of them. You could always try the wayback machine for deadlinks as well. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mate!

F*uck you for blocking me mate. Just wanted to say F*uCK you for blocking me. But ya s*hitty brain can't work out that I can easily change IP so your blocks are redundant and ineffective. Try blocking me now b*astard, if you dare, cause I'll just change my IP and continue to vandalize Wikipedia elsewhere. I can't be stopped! My IP is dynamic and goes over a broad range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.241.143 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology, mate. But don't be disillusioned thinking that'll stop me vandalizing wikipedia. I'm angry because I was editing in good faith and was blocked but you moderators don't seem to bother. Now I've turned into a vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.66.6 (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I only blocked you when you blatantly vandalised articles. Makes no difference to me, you're a vandal and I'll block you everywhere you go. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Marie

Hi,

Have you started an RFC as you suggested regarding this editor yet? I don't see it, but I might not be looking in the right place. a_man_alone (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't started it. I'm trying to remain as uninvolved as possible, I've had run-ins with this editor before so don't feel best placed to start an objective RFC/U. I was hoping someone else would do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I could quote the above almost verbatim as well - could be we're all waiting for somebody else to start it. a_man_alone (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I asked BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster to consider it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santana discography/archive2

hello,

could I add another list to the FLC, without withdraw this disco? That's because User:AlastorMoody didn't address since 12th December, but he is "very willing to reconsider, I'm fair don't worry", he wrote in his comment there. I think he will come back to this FLC, but I won't wait so long until he write something back. Is this possible? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Come one answer me, please :). I have a large queue for FLC. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. The existing nomination has outstanding oppose !votes and no support. You'd be better off asking all the reviewers to revisit the FLC and address outstanding issues on this FLC before attempting to start another one, per the FLC instructions... "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

James Chichester-Clark

Hi Rambling Man

You did the right thing altering the level of the heading which Lucy-marie had applied when she moved part of a discussion at Talk:James Chichester-Clark, but unfortunately that still left my comments removed from the policy claim to which they were replying .. so I have moved them back in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey. No worries. I get the feeling you're going round in circles with her right now. Good luck. Do consider WP:RFC/U, it would be helpful to the whole community to get this sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather circular. :( I am often unsure when to give up on someone when things do get circular, but I generally think it's worth a few rounds to try to make progress. However, there's no sign of any progress there, so it's time to give up on that particular point. Hopefully someone else will bring something to the Chichester-Clark/Moyola discussion which will help me make up my mind!

I have indeed been considering WP:RFC/U, and I agree that it's probably the right thing to do. I have held back partly because there is a lot of work in setting up such a discussion and in amassing the evidence as it progresses, and I think that it's a better use of everyone's time if that can be avoided. Maybe it can't be avoided, but I haven't quite given up hope just yet, and maybe be warnings about WP:BOOMERANG in the WQA discussion will help?

The other reason I'm holding back is that the intensity of scrutiny at RFC/U is a fairly uncomfortable process for the editor being scrutinised. Sometimes the pain of an RFC/U is necessary, but if the feedback at WQA prompts a rethink, then I reckon everyone will have benefitted from having held back on the RFC/U. I'm not holding my breath, but since we have already dissuaded Luciy-marie from continuing her mass move-warring for now, I don't think it's impossible that there may be further progress.

Let's take a look again in a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from the beachfront in warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers dude. Enjoy that beachfront. I've got rain and fog in the UK! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm learning...

Thanks for your comments... I am trying to clear up the pages for the Desert Valley Star and the American Free Journal weekly newspapers. I'm no expert about Wiki but am citing references and doing the best I can for notability and presenting unbiased and accurate information. I appreciate any and all guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotWater (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS guidance

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions today. I probably owe KV5 an apology for ending up using his nomination as a discussion space on dealing with awkward symbols. I decided I'd just boldly edit the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Text, and see if it sticks. Do you think that is sufficient guidance, or does it need expansion or clarification? Regards --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

While I was editing MOS:ACCESS, I spotted the guidance on italic text that I couldn't remember the location of: "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion) ..." at WP:ACCESS#Text (no. 2). The implication is that italic text, if used as a key, won't necessarily convey the intended information to a screen reader (unless they have sounding of text attributes turned on). That partially contradicts the guidance at WP:ACCESS#Color and I think I've overburdened KV5 too much already, so I'm really just mentioning it to you as a "heads-up" for the future. --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps ACCESS guys can check this out and get some consistency across the guidelines before we try to roll out one more change? I think this is another example as to why people find ACCESS guidelines so onerous, not only do they seem to change reasonably regularly, they contradict themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it's not really a contradiction, since italic text is clearly a good visible indicator for colour-blind viewers (which is the point of that section), but is obviously less useful for blind viewers. Nevertheless, I agree that ACCESS should be clearer in the guidance it gives in that respect, and I'll try to open a discussion there to seek ideas on how it can be better phrased. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if we're driven by the lowest common denominator (for want of a better phrase) or least able viewers, then italics are not suitable for ACCESS and it should say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it should. I'm just waiting to see if there are any objections that I haven't thought of before I remove it. I've usually found that amending MOS is the wikipedia equivalent of cutting the Gordian Knot, and there's really no point in having guidance that isn't actually helpful to editors. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FLC guidance?

Hi again. I wonder if you would revisit Wikipedia:FLC#List_of_selected_stars_for_navigation. I believe all your points, with perhaps the exception of what we were calling the "HOWTO issue", have been addressed. I've been back to the review and the list probably two-dozen times since finishing up the ACCESS issues with RexxS, and haven't been able to get any traction on the "HOWTO issue". If cutting the words "easily identifiable" would solve the problem, I'd happily do it. OTOH, it seems useful to mention that Orion is very easy to spot, as opposed to, say Draco. I assumed that the other star-chart subsections would have HOWTO-ish text, but if they do, I'm just not seeing it now. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Haus^Talk 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lemon Jelly (disambiguation)

The article Lemon Jelly (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This a pointless disambiguation page and a mild hoax. Lemon Jelly has nothing in common with lemon curd, and because Wikipedia is an American Encyclopedia the article on "Jelly" is called Gelatin dessert. Also the Kraft Food brand is Jell-O.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. memphisto 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Change of username request

Dear Rambling Man,

To completely perserve my personal identity I would like please to change my username from Skreen to Drumcliffe (I checked it is available). Your help would be appreciated.

With thanks in advance,

Skreen (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a big problem, but please fill out a request at WP:CHU. It should be dealt with promptly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Collingwood

You and Dweller (talk · contribs) are the leading contributor's to Collingwood's article, but neither of you have edited the article since 2009. Are you maintaining the article? Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles on sportsmen are a time sink until the subject retires. Hopefully just playing in ODIs and T20Is will make things easier to stay on top of. My prose in cricket articles isn't great, and usually a bit jargon-y (see Mashrafe Mortaza or Paul Horton for examples) but I was thinking if no one else is picking up the baton my dodgy prose may have to do. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One to keep an eye on?

Things are getting fiesty over at Fiona Shackleton - [1]. Might be worth watching... a_man_alone (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, what a palava. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your help is needed please

Thanks for your fast response to my earlier request to change my username to Drumcliffe. I went to the page that you directed (as I did before contacting you)and cannot locate the request form but just the helpful guide. Your guidance/help would be appreciated and sorry for wasting your time.

Yours in Wikipedia,

Skreen (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear. The page you are looking for is linked from WP:CHU, it's Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. The instructions there should be easy enough to follow. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I have a very dirty toilet that needs cleaning, too, if you like --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the other refs at Lambert need some attention too. Perhaps this afternoon.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort

Happy old-ish hippy, yes! Sad? Not me! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead reports retracted

Dead reports retracted Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, did you read the talkpage, or what? Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Gabrielle Giffords

Please cease editing the article Gabrielle Giffords while it is protected. Admin privileges are not for overriding edit protection. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So was I. I hadn't realised it had moved to full protection (which is overkill) but nevertheless, I will cease. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)