User talk:The Rambling Man

Big fat diiiing dong

--Dweller (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Danke schön. We should invite Tenex back for a reunion. He'd be loving it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he'd be cheering while secretly scratching his head along with the rest of us. --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumble. ;-) --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive3‎

Could you please strike resolved issues at Wikipedia:Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive3‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you could get to this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is much improved, I'd just take it to either GAN or FAC depending on how brave you're feeling. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

ITN

--Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2

Hello, Rambling Man

Thanks for your quick peer review of Microsoft Security Essentials. I most of your initial concerns are now addressed. What else can you spot?

If possibly, please reply in Archive2 or here, since as you know, I am not monitoring the talk page which was once mine.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Have done so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Part of Me (Katy Perry song)/archive1

Hi, I've had Part of Me (Katy Perry song) on a peer review request for a while now, I've seen that you've done a music related review, is it possible if you can please give a peer review of it because I've contributed to this article A LOT and this is currently my first GA nominee I would greatly appreciate your help/suggestions thanks, teman13 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Rambling Man. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles of 2006 (New Zealand)/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Till I Go Home (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rambling Man, have I addressed your concerns for the list? Or do you have further improvement suggestions for the article? Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You've resolved my concerns other than the issue of merging it with other lists which has been the case in some other FLs. That's why I've left it uncapped. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the template tidy. I wonder... do you think The Friendship Trophy may be notable? --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you have multiple independent reliable sources talking about it? It could be, are there any other games like this which you can think of which might have articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Broxbourne Elections 2014

Hi

An article I have created this morning, Broxbourne Elections 2014, seems to have been tagged for deletion.

I would be most grateful if this doesn't happen as the page lists the Councillors who will be required to stand for re-election in 2014, if they chose to put themselves forward as candidates.

Clearly at this stage the councillors intentions are unknown which is why I have entered TBC in the table column heading "Standing Again".

The information regarding the scheduled 2014 election is fully verifiable via external links.

Many thanks for your help

Kindest Regards

Richard

Richard Clemerson (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Richard. Well you can offer your opinion at the WP:AFD in question. It's up to the community to decide, not just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Slovenian football champions (PR)

Hello! Since almost two weeks has passed when you made your last comment, am I to assume that you no longer have any objections to the list and its peer review? If that is the case and considering you were the only one who answered to the PR, can you tell me on how to close and archive the review (dont know how to do that myself), so I could add the list to FLC. Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again:) Ratipok (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No problemo. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

One of your edits

I referred to one of your edits in a discussion on WT:MOSDATE. Apparently, you used a script to format dates, Prior to your edit, nearly all the dates in the reference section were in YYYY-MM-DD format, which is an acceptable format. Your edit changed the format. That seems like a violation of WP:DATERET. Why did you do that? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, (1) mixed formats for the same fields is frowned upon by MOS so I unified them, (2) the original date format in the article refs (see WP:DATERET), per this edit used readable date formats, (3) by the time I edited the article it was either YYYY-MM-DD or readable date formats per Month DD, YYYY, (4) the first date to appear in the article prose was in the DD Month YYYY format. So I just picked one and applied it for internal consistency. Feel free to undo it, I couldn't care less either way! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is the references section prior to your edit. The predominant format seems evident, I think (first rule of dateret). But as long as you have no objection to someone restoring the prior style, OK. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the predominant format was YYYY-MM-DD, and I have no issue with any date format as long as it's consistent (of course, human-readable is better because the encyclopedia is read by humans). Perhaps DATERET needs to be clearer that the original format of references shouldn't be followed then, as you seem to be ignoring that point. Or are the points of DATERET somehow an order of precedence? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they are generally looked at as order of precedence, much like ENGVAR. If the article is nearly consistent one way, then it goes that way. Only when the predominant variety is unclear is the "first major contributor" used as a fallback (to "break ties" in ENGVAR terms). Gimmetoo (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, so I could creepily change the refs over time, or add more in my preferred format, then claim it's the predominant form per DATERET and get my own way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a grey area I suspect has been abused before. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi! I saw your name all over the Request for Peer review and was wondering if you could review Trivium (band)? Let me know, thanks :) MrLittleIrish ^(talk) 申 15:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)