User talk:The Rambling Man

ITN recognition for 2016 Ryder Cup

On 5 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Ryder Cup, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 17:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Says it all, really. BencherliteTalk 14:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers B'lite. I'll be calling when I need someone to do the hard work... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Andrzej Wajda

On 10 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrzej Wajda, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dragons flight (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for not giving up on Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

^What Dragon said. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Alistair Urquhart

On 11 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Alistair Urquhart, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dario Fo

On 16 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dario Fo, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for History of Ipswich Town F.C. or "This shall be the last time I burden your doorsteps with my pleas of your time and energy!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to know that despite the general distaste for my presence, that my positive work is still appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't imagine the Main page without you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, very kind. You are in the minority, but I'll continue to defend Wikipedia from the mediocre and inadequate. But I'll try to do it really kindly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You and I are in the same boat, I guess, - the cabal of the outcasts. We even have it organized ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I must have been living under a rock for the last couple of months, because I was unaware of the whole kerfuffle. It is too late for me to give you my commiserations, but I doubt you need that anyway. So instead I'll give you my support at a future RFA, if and when that happens. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Pete Burns

On 25 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pete Burns, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 10:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

I admire your dedication, and your decision to stick around. Many would have retired under those circumstances. I am very happy that you chose not to do that. Continuity with one's past achievements is important, so that your role here over the years can be appreciated, and your experience drawn upon. You have a legacy you can be proud of: over 10 years of helping to educate the world.

Your respect for ArbCom's decisions sets a good example for others to follow, and strengthens the community and its culture. Thank you.

By the way, I noticed that your user page is missing, and was wondering when we will get to see the new you. ;)

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

		The Excellent New and Improved Editor's BarnstarA toast, to TRM Redux, and starting anew.
		Cheers! The Transhumanist 23:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sakharov Prize

On 28 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sakharov Prize, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Hi, hope you are well! Miller in 1948 is TFA on 28 November. I'm not a huge fan of the 1948 series of articles that we have, but they are what they are. However, this one was a little padded and, to be brutal, rather dull. I've gone through and trimmed over 1,000 words from it and generally tidied it up a bit, but I'd like another pair of cricket eyes on it if possible. Dweller has had a quick look but I don't think he got past the lead. If your sanity can bear it, I'd appreciate if you could see how it holds up from a cricket and FA viewpoint. My view is that its OK; not great, but OK for TFA. Any thoughts? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't got back to you on this. Will hopefully have some time in the next week to take a look at Miller. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Boxing

Much greetings and well-wishes! It's been a while since I got in touch. No, I'm not scampering here like a wronged kid in a schoolyard again ("Waaah, help me from this meanie IP with a bizarre agenda about hyphens!"), but rather just asking for some advice, whilst taking into account your editing situation.

From November 2015 to February 2016, I pretty much single-handedly undertook the task of creating an MOS for boxing articles, with obvious feedback from fellow editors at WikiProject Boxing. To me it felt like a master stroke in getting rid of all the myriad inconsistencies that resulted in a lack of any sort of guideline. Thus, MOS:BOXING was born. Admittedly I look at it as my "baby" on here. I wouldn't say I view it as something that I own, but I am rather protective over it, and am certainly not willing to back down from the occasional edit-warring user who stumbles along out of nowhere, doesn't like the new and improved format they now see across hundreds of boxing articles (mainly MOS:BOXING/RECORD), and demands changes to it.

Now, I do love me some collaboration and discussion, but more often than not the requests/demands for change are unreasonable (mainly going against the basics like WP:ACCESS, WP:OVERLINK, WP:BULLET, etc.) Thing is, the consensus that I got from announcing the finalisation of the MOS in June could perhaps be considered shaky, as it was pretty much of the silent kind. Previous stages of consensus were achieved in December 2015 and February 2016. However, even though I once had encouragement from the users who supported my proposal at the time, I'm now starting to doubt myself as their voices are seldom heard when I need them, and newer editors who weren't around at the time of those discussions are appearing out of the woodwork and disputing various elements of the MOS (here and here).

So! What I'm rambling (heh) about here is whether you have any experience of consensus-building and MOS'es on WP, and if I have a leg to stand on this case. I know there's RfCs I could start up, but those were already done a year ago, and irritatingly WikiProject Boxing isn't the most active in terms of actual members participating in discussion (besides edit-warring). Right now I'm just thinking the whole MOS that I got going could be torn apart if one or more editors decide to complain, via WP:DRN or someplace, that previous consensus wasn't strong enough. It hasn't happened yet on a large scale, but I fear it could. Do you have any ideas on what I could do in order to give MOS:BOXING a more solid foundation—WP:PROPOSAL, maybe? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll need to re-read this tomorrow or Monday before giving a qualified response. Hope you don't mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh no worries. Take all the time you need, it's not urgent. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede-too-short tagging

I have noticed that you usually drop by articles, especially newly-written pages in DYK, and leave the lede-too-short tag, while performing a semi-automated tag. Why not challenge yourself to be bold and improve it yourself? Improvement tags are all too prolific on this site.– Gilliam (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I may engage more heavily with articles in which I have interest or knowledge. It's really more up for those who have specific interest in articles to improve them. In reality, if DYK articles have sub-standard leads per WP:LEAD, this should be picked up by the reviewer or promoter of the hook to the prep/queue before it gets as far as the main page. Thanks for your interest in my ongoing quest to keep us from posting poor articles to the main page. I have plenty of challenges on Wikipedia, so I feel it unnecessary to add another one to the list! While we're on that topic, could you add references to the Talsi article regarding the twin towns please, otherwise that section is an {{unreferenced section}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Gilliam on this issue. There is nothing in either the DYK rules or the DYK supplementary rules that requires leads to conform to any MOS guidelines, and I do not think an article about to appear on the front page should have a tag of this sort added to it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It matters not a jot about what DYK rules say. Every article on Wikipedia should strive to meet the requirements of WP:MOS. In fact, it's only DYK that actively allows that to be summarily ignored. Now then, both of you, please go back to improving Wikipedia, just as I do, hundreds of times a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

German articles usually come with only one line of a lead, but I like a bit more, and the tag is a reminder when I only translated and forgot. The tag can be removed with no problem, so where is a problem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The mop

If nominated again, would you accept an RFA nomination?--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly be hilarious to see the wrath of many editors levelled at me again. It'd sink like a stone I suspect... Given the current 75%+ threshold, I'd need something like 250 supporters to cover those who came large at me during the Arbcom case. Not sure the last time any RFA had that many participants... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think in Wikipedia's heyday you could have garnered 250 supporters, but many of the high-level contributors of that era have probably been driven off the project, so you may be right. Well, you have me, anyway. That leaves you with 249 more supporters to scrounge up. :-) --WaltCip (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I do find I'm spending a lot of time telling admins what needs to be done rather than just being able to do it myself, but I'll hold off for now to see if any other supporters make such overtures! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, The Rambling Man. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position

I disagree. I would prefer to categorize them immediately by position, yes - but I've considered it, and I see no way to comfortably do it with AWB that wouldn't risk making massive errors. This at least places them into a category where they can be identified as lacking and dealt with accordingly.

To your first point. To the second - thanks for the tip. I suspect I know where the issue lies, having examined the article in question, and will re-run the script accordingly to deal with it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Blimey, you've gone Cat-astrophically mad. More power to your elbow, old boy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a bit annoyed that the world's most prolific Wikipedian (Ser Amantio di Nicolao) is creating all this work. He can easily modify the AWB script to take the position from the infobox and convert it into a category. Instead, he's making hundreds of edits per hour that someone then has to just go and fix. Grim. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I? I don't know how. If you would like to show me how, perhaps I can learn. But as it stands, I don't know how to do that at all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Butting in, why not pause what you're doing and see if there's a way to get it done right, working collaboratively? For example, a bot could probably do this task. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Arb questions

Hi! Could you please clarify what you're asking in your first question to me? Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It's clear to me and many of the other candidates. If you don't understand the question, I guess you're not really the candidate I'm looking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

FLC

Since you reviewed this last time, I thought you might be interested. No issues otherwise. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Asking for help at FLC

Hi TRM. Here at FLC, activity is stalling out. Very few of the candidates have enough reviews where we could say there is consensus one way or the other, and we are in need of at least one set of extra eyes. If you ever get tired of all the work you do at ITN and DYK, please consider taking a short break from those tasks and reviewing a few lists at FLC. You could take your pick of just about everything on the page; they almost all need additional reviews at the moment. We would appreciate any help you could provide. While I'm here, congratulations on becoming a delegate once again. If you start closing FLCs again, please be aware that we now need specific source reviews before a list is promoted. Very few people seem to be interested in doing these reviews, which makes the whole process even slower than it was before. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Giants, long time no speak. Sure, I'll add a few reviews, I note that some of those at the bottom of the list have just one review, unbelievable. Let's see how much time I get (ITN and DYK are easy wins for me, a few minutes here, a few minutes there) while reviewing an FLC is a longer, more committed process. Once I get some time from the 3-year-old and 6-month-old ankle biters, I'll ensure I get cracking with it. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for LaMia Airlines Flight 2933

On 29 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article LaMia Airlines Flight 2933, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Margaret Rhodes

On 29 November 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Margaret Rhodes, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for David Hamilton (photographer)

On 1 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Hamilton (photographer), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Interaction Ban Reminder

Hello,

I’m writing to remind you that as a result of the arbitration case that both you and George Ho are prohibited from interacting with each other, barring the usual exceptions. Recently, you posted questions to the election pages of multiple candidates where you indirectly made reference to George Ho. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) Please note that such comments are not permitted under the interaction ban and further instances will result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V No, you're completely incorrect. I made an indirect reference to Banedon. Please check his contributions prior to the Arbcom case. I refuse to accept this warning. On the flipside, the other individual you have named has made overt references to specifically me. That's a direct breach of the IBAN. Please either do your job correctly or don't do it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is quite clear that you were referring to George Ho in regards to canvassing, especially considering that there was a finding of fact in that matter. Your comment is on par with George's and you both have been warned in a similar fashion. Mike V • Talk 23:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V then you are sadly, sadly mistaken and are using a bad faith argument to violate my rights. Please redact this "enforcement" immediately. I have referred to no-one specifically, unlike the other user named in your post. You are simply wrong. If you take the time to see how many individuals Banedon canvassed, you'd actually get the point and you may get your job right here. In the meantime I suggest you leave me alone until someone else competent can assess this issue. I have no interest in any "finding of fact" that Arbcom may have "found", I absolutely saw the dozens of posts made by Banedon in the Arbcom case. It was a disgusting and one-sided violation of policy which went entirely unaddressed. You clearly have an issue assuming good faith here and I find it frankly disgusting that you will allow a direct and overt and ongoing discussion of me by the other IBAN user while you concoct some untruth about my editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V do you want me to go back and dig out all the diffs that show Banedon's canvassing? Would that help you understand my point? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V Here you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and they're the ones I found quickly. On the other hand it seems like Arbcom are happy to allow this kind of canvassing to go completely unaddressed and the overt discussions of my actions during that case by a user who is IBANed with me go with a simple warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)