Jump to content

User talk:The Rambling Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.82.72.184 (talk) at 17:24, 23 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user previously identified as Budgiekiller.
Click here to add a new message at the bottom of my talk page!
Tip of the moment...
Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not.

There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial.

Become a Wikipedia tipster
To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}
Tutorials
User guides to ...
In the wp:Signpost
The published book, online
Help contents

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 2 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Archives

Run a script?

This one's right up your street. I'm working my way through the points in the automated peer review. There's an automated script to fix the footnote issue - see User:AndyZ/G#footspace. Scripts terrify me (it took several large Scotch's to get the courage to install Popups) but I think you're quite comfortable with them. Want a stab at it? Other than that, I think I've done just about all of the comments, except I'm a bit stumped by the comments about WP:LEAD. At three parags, we seem to be in line with the advice there and there's nothing more worth saying in the lead, IMHO. --Dweller 09:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without the use of a script (for some reason, on my Mac they're a lot more trouble than they're worth... except pop-ups) I've moved all the footnotes accordingly, made a couple of typo corrections (fancy you typing Norkfolk!) and added a couple of wikilinks e.g. Cambridge University Cricket Club and Tony Cozier. I tend to agree with you on the WP:LEAD aspects, three paras is fine, an article of this length borders on four paras, but it's just a guide so I don't see it being a problem. Are we done??! The Rambling Man 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Looks like it. Thanks for your labour. I wrote Norkfolk? That's just bootiful. We can request a re-run of the automated peer review. I'll do it. --Dweller 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You fed up with Ipsh!t and gone to Revert City? --Dweller 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah, periodically I have to get back to my roots, taking out the US schoolkids who invariably show up at 3pm to poop all over WP. Plus I'm off work sick and find it easier to revert vandalism that make elegant and eloquent contributions! Got any other projects in mind? An FA perhaps? Really enjoyed the possible GA...(fingers crossed)... The Rambling Man 17:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic FC Vandalism

The Rambling Man, I'm sorry to hear that vandalism to the page "Celtic FC" was done by this IP address I'm using, but what you thought was right, this IP address is my college's, and every computer in the building is linked to it. Therefore, I can assure you that I did NOT vandalize that page, and it was someone else using this address. 195.194.196.37 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Note that I was not the only editor to place vandalism warnings on this talk page. If you wish to avoid receiving vandalism warnings, register an account, it's free and easy! Cheers! The Rambling Man 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

I've added a bunch of citations around the 1987/88 tour of Pakistan. There are several in the same sentence, and to be clear what's citing what, I've put them inside the sentence, but following punctuation. Is that OK? Re our next projects, I suggest, in fairness Ipswich Town F.C., followed by Norwich City F.C.. What say you? --Dweller 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just cross-posted with you... ITFC, wow! At least our Achievements section would be more than "Milk Cup" and "Bayern Munich/Jeremy Goss"!! (joking...!). Let's make a decision when we get the GA official. Funnily enough it'd be a good idea for us to do either NCFC or ITFC as we could look out for each others flagrant breaches of WP:OR (...Goss soared majestically, striking at the ball as a cobra would spear a mongoose, Bayern were destroyed, the Bavarians wept into their pretzels... for example!)... The Rambling Man 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Glory days. When you have a moment (and the inclination) please take a look at the following (lifted from the peer review page) which is definitely more your bag than mine. It's from ALoan's comments. Incidentally, if he says it's not far off a FA he knows what he's talking about, as he's done loads.
The squad templates do not display properly for me - why are there line breaks after Curtis and Greenidge? And some   may be helpful to avoid breaking in odd places. Perhaps bullets (•) would be better than pipes (|) to separate people.
Cheers, --Dweller 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop

wat is wrong with yuo? all that i did was add that Mark had his opperation yesterday... do i need to cite that... there is nothign wrong with that... good to also see that many others are getting annoyed with the way you treat thi site... do you own it or something... you just change things all day all night... do something else... what i have added and now what someone else has added is great and informative... rather than write a whole bunch of rubbish you should look at what people are interested in... when someone inside of the cricket world dicides to share something with you and other wiki nuts you should take the time to actually care... that way you may learn something from people that actually do... PS I know who changed it today, and they are inccedibly high in the ECB so watch what you change smart ass...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricketguru (talk • contribs)

No, you added an uncited reference to a successful operation (which I've now added with a [citation needed] tag) and reverted back to a version you had edited previously with incorrect wikilinks, original research and point-of-view phrases. Please try to remain civil. The Rambling Man 11:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to Trevor Hohns and South Africa ? Tintin 11:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shep

See WT:CRIC. I'm logging off now, maybe for the night. We'll see. This is fun. --Dweller 18:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay dude, I've tagged most of it for uncited "facts", left a message on both WT:CRIC and Shep's talk page as to why it looks like a mess right now. I'm off out to celebrate! If not later, tomorrow... The Rambling Man 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated 1988 article for FA, have requested an automated peer review of Shep. When should we go for the "real" peer review? No point going for GA. There's such a backlog and we need FA anyway! --Dweller 10:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real peer review, let me have a few moments to see where we are and I'll let you know what I think. FA all the way! The Rambling Man 10:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Look - 18 hours in, see what's been done ([1]). 88 edits! --Dweller 12:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's good, like a sprint challenge. I'm hopefully knocking the citations down left right and centre and making decent citewebs of them all. What do you make of the MOTM table? It might be a bit OTT but it looks better than it did before... The Rambling Man 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but I'm still not convinced it's needed. Last time I looked at Brian Lara it was overflowing with them! Do we need to explain * means not out? --Dweller 12:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did wikilink each instance of the asterisk to Not out, it's either that, or write it out in words I suppose... The Rambling Man 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry, that's fine, of course. Seen the Lara article? It's a joke. --Dweller 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see why you're concerned this article may turn out like Lara's. No harm for the time being, it's not a table-festival like Lara yet, so let's wait and see... The Rambling Man 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<Pedantic tut> See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/February_2007#West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1988; we were told to unwikilink dates. The ones in the info box were then linked again, per ALoan, but those in the article are best left unlinked. --Dweller 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid me. Okay, we'll need to unwikilink all the others then... The Rambling Man 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you

I am grateful that you corrected the "work" of what I suspect to be a vandal, on

Matt's page.

You are very kind to help.


Lee.Lee Nysted 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

The Rambling Man

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Going strong as usual, I see...

Glad to see you have been keeping busy. Cool. I was wondering, what are the most important things you've learned since your RfA?

You have a good grasp on wikitools, and so I was also wondering: have you looked into Bots yet? That may be a good next step for you.

This proposal looks like a good model to base one's approach on : Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#STBotT, being task the seventh, standing for "Template".

Notice that it applies AWB as a bot. I just thought you might find it interesting.

The Transhumanist   17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, how's it going? Yeah, still going since the failed RFA. To be honest, I've actually enjoyed myself a lot more since. I've been working harder in XFDs and participating in other folk's RFAs, and I'm hoping to get a couple of articles to GA/FA within the next few weeks. While these all correspond directly with the majority of the failings in my RFA, it's almost coincidental as, when I started having a go at all these things, I really enjoyed them. I still get back to vandal whacking when I fancy a break!
As for bots, nothing yet. I'll have a look at your link in due course. Hope all is well with you! The Rambling Man 10:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Moni(lilium) (talk · contribs)

thanx for helping hope u have a good day--Moni(lilium) 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Feel free to get in touch in the future if you need any assistance. The Rambling Man 10:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back

Hi. I'm back. Won't be able to do that much today or tomorrow but thanks for the masses you've done over the past couple of days. The FA seems to be going well. I've just left a message for the user who wikilinked all the dates that we unwikilinked! I'm popping over to Shep's talk page now to see where we're up to with that. --Dweller 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, enjoy yesterday? Looks like you were unlucky to lose by four, indeed you could have had a couple yourself. We were robbed, dubious sending-off, disallowed goal, crossbar rattled and typical, pathetic conceding goal with two minutes to go. Pah.
So, back to the point. Yeah, I've gone footnote mad with Colly and have pretty much cited every single statistic within the article. I've also put it up for Peer Review, but nothing there yet. Did you have to ask for the automated PR or did it just happen? The main area I think we should focus on is getting a larger domestic career section, he's been pretty hot for Durham over the past five years or so, but I've got no material to base any of this on besides end-of-season averages. If we get a large enough section, we could consider adding the other infobox, for first-class and List A appearances/averages etc.
The other area is the five or so remaining [citation needed]'s, almost all of which are pinned to, at the moment, original research. I've tried to find some quotes, etc to deal with them, but nothing as yet. I proposed a consistent width of 80% on cricket templates, Oliver Brown has attended to them, so at least the two used on Colly's page line up nicely now and I removed the whitespace on top and below.
Anyway, that's where I think we are as well. Let me know what you think our next line of attack is. Have a good couple of days. The Rambling Man 10:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Think yesterday was harsh result for both of us, but in our case, the better team won and the scoreline doesn't really matter, since it was unembarrassing. Re Colly, I am keen to work through the text and rewrite, to avoid copyvio. That's a serious problem. I think the Durham details should be accessible through Wisden online, but maybe not. Perhaps Cricket archive - I think they have all first class scorecards etc. There's a bit of a jump between his ODI debut and Test, that I'm not convinced is entirely covered by the injury period. Automatic peer review... I did drop the guy a message and ask for one a few days back. Anyway, I'm gonna have to run now and I'm not sure whether I'll be back in any meaningful way before Tuesday :-( --Dweller 11:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few minutes and am looking for that Times citation re knighthood. Btw how inevitable was it that if anyone would score for Watford it would be Francis? --Dweller 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guaranteed if you ask me, plus I could have tucked it away myself, easy. Oh well. Concentrate on the league (blah blah blah). Re:Colly, I'm finding it difficult to find a citation for the concern over his position in the team, and whether he'd be dropped on Freddie's return. Also, can't find anything for first Durham CCC player to make double-ton for England (which should be easy to find, but there you go...!) Other than that, it's the domestic career we need to hit, and hit hard. The Rambling Man 10:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditch the OR or put it in a hidden section, so it can be restored with a citation? Tintin's an ace at tracking down stats and records, you could ask him? The headline seems to have existed (cryptically referred to in the Guardian) but I can't blinking find it. Yet. --Dweller 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps I'll drop Tintin a line, see what he can do for us. Meantime, I'll probably comment out the remaining OR so we don't have any more [citation needed]'s. The Rambling Man 10:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna get cracking tomorrow with this little beauty. I think you've covered all the bases otherwise on Shep. I don't understand the date issue, unless it's when a full' date is cited, wikilink it in its entirety? You're mad for it. --Dweller 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Colly, I'll try but have to rely almost entirely on online sources. (Actually, I'll be more useful in the stuff before 1995. These days I don't enough time to follow cricket as I used to). Tintin 05:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See today's edits. I think that should do the trick. We don't want to over-egg the domestic stuff and we don't have any interesting quotes anyway. I've left a message for ALoan. So, I'm happy to leave this now and once it's been copyedited by a third party, nom it. Over to Gilly I suppose. PS I read that Hayden might have fractured his foot this morning... --Dweller 10:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Just spotted some lingering citation needed tags. I'll sort them first. --Dweller 10:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Yeah, Hayden broke his big toe. Still batted alright though! The Rambling Man 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Useless, but interesting Tintin 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All CNs now dealt with, except two that are about him being 1st Durham player to xyz. I've posted at WT:CRIC for help. --Dweller 11:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was also the first for any player from Durham since its promotion to first-class status. MEK Hussey played for Durham in 2005 and scored a Test 100 in that November. Does that count ? Tintin 11:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, since he did not appear in 2006. Tintin 11:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're having an off-morning Tintin. Your edits at WT:CRIC just now were more Dwellerish than Tintinlike, lol. I think interacting with me is having a negative effect and I recommend you boycott me immediately. (No, not that Boycott, this Boycott!)
Lol. See whether there is anything useful here. I didn't check too closely but this seems to have something on his early years and this on his parents. Also [2] and [3] Tintin 12:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind I'm still working on Colly. I see Gilly is getting TRM treatment! Please see ALoan's talk page. --Dweller 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, I'm happy to go with Blnguyen's recommendation and go for Harbajan next. It'd be good to work on a cricketer from such a different background and he's quite a colourful character. Besides, I love watching spin bowling. --Dweller 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean instead of Gilchrist, or as well as or after?! Looks like we got some more comments on Colly's article, see the peer review... The Rambling Man 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, after! You're well set with Gilly. I'm almost done for today. Will take a quick peek at Colly peer review though. I might be able to ref those two CNs tonight using a (gosh) paper Wisden. Depends on how late my meeting runs. --Dweller 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any more comments on peer review. Also, have you seen Aloan's talk page, re catches as sub? --Dweller 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he "Shep" ? Tintin 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume it's because John Noakes (or was it Peter Purves?) had a collie (geddit!?!?) called "Shep" on Blue Peter, but I've no source for it, and don't want to introduce OR. --Dweller 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Scratches head* Okay, thanks. Tintin 10:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! He has his own article! Shep (dog). Would this work (an apparent homage to the famous collie, Shep) --Dweller 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from anon IP

I dont believe my comments should have been reverted in the case of the SAFC article. Go to www.totallynsfw.com where there is full evidence of my claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.106.18 (talk • contribs)

I don't believe your contribution was encyclopaedic in the slightest. But thanks for your message. The Rambling Man 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong colour blue?

You must be from that other place then... I'll do what I can with Gilly - I've had a few goes tonight and I'll get back to it once I do some more of what I'm apparently here to do... Physics... Cricketgirl 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood

No worries, glad to be of service. I'll look out for the Gilchrist/anyone else peer review. Sorry about knocking you out of the cup - by all accounts we were pretty lucky! Cheers, HornetMike 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, and with us having a rescinded red card and a dubious disallowed goal, I think pretty lucky sums up your afternoon!! Anyway, thanks again for your help, look forward to reading your comments when Gilchrist makes it to peer review. The Rambling Man 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out what I've just done:

  • Added Shep - OR?
  • Added great quote from Geoff Cook. - Whole parag is one source. Is there a better way to ref it? Block quote?
  • Somehow screwed up refs - please help fix

When we're done with this, I'll nom. --Dweller 11:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just spotted a load of to-the-point stuff from Tintin at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Paul_Collingwood. If you could take a look at what I've just posted above, I'll take a look at Tintin's comments? --Dweller 11:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stats at the end has the potential to be handicap later (as long we don't have a way to automate it) because we'll have to update three tables for every match. Tintin 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my comment to TRM when the suggestion was made. Any clever ideas? The charts go out of date too. --Dweller 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't like them there either, but we have to keep the infobox up to date at the top of the article so it's not all that different really. The Rambling Man 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Gilchrist

How can I make the citations look right - when I put in [url], it comes up with a big [1], rather than the little footnotes superscripts. I've looked at the edit page script, but it looks really complicated to make the citations pretty - any hints? Cheers. Cricketgirl 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another FA nomination

See your name in lights at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Collingwood. --Dweller 13:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo. Let's hope it doesn't go Pete Tong! The Rambling Man 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Colly appreciation society!

Just want to thank you for your and your team's tireless work. All of us here at the P.D. Collingwood Booster Society of Western Canada thank you. :) --209.90.173.40 08:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! The Rambling Man 08:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His father, David, is still a member of the Shotley Bridge cricket club. The "still a member of SBCC" appears suddenly, and without a context. President, Nitpickers' society.

That's a fair point. I didn't add that phrase, but I've found a good source which, with a minor rephrase of above, ought to deal with your concern, Sir Mr President Sir...! The Rambling Man 10:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, hopefully to your Nitpicking approval...! The Rambling Man 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Tintin 10:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a busy night

Thanks for staying on the ball with Shep. I've just finished a major work thingy, so should be able to help with Gilly and then The Turbanator. (btw you were far more tolerant of the Chinese food thing than I would have been!) --Dweller 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good to "see" you! Still have a few comments left on Colly, but hopefully I've got them covered... The Rambling Man 10:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our FA

Thank you for all your efforts, expertise and enthusiasm. These 3 Es are responsible for a huge proportion of this. You make me feel quite inadequate. Roll on your RfA, currently planned for mid March, c. 2 months from the chance the community spurned. --Dweller 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure 100% team effort. More power to it! Let's let the RFA dwell (!) for a while, I'm up for more of this crazy FA stuff! When you get some time, Gilly's the man - I've done a bunch of work on it today. Peer review soonish. Mine's a pint! The Rambling Man 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nom

Hey Rambling... (hmm, I'll just say this forthrightly) but I went ahead and created an Admin request for you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man. Suffice it to say I think you're a great user and can be trusted with the tools. If you want to stand up for it or no, just put your siggy on the page... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David
I can't thank you enough for having the confidence to prepare an RFA for me. While I'm flattered beyond belief, I hope you don't take it personally if I say I'd rather leave it a couple more months. In the wake of my last failed RFA I've broadened my horizons and believe that, right now, I have a lot more to offer by contibuting to articles than channeling my energies into justifying why I ought to become an admin. I'm 100% sure that I'll go for it soon, and hope you'll support me when I do, should I still meet your criteria, but in the meantime I'd like to gracefully decline. With sincerest thanks, The Rambling Man 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no prob. See 'ya around. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a month since TRM's last RfA. While I think he'd probably cake-walk it now, rushing back "too soon" is often the prompt for oppose !votes. I'm planning to nominate in a month or so. Besides, as TRM says, at the moment, we're devoting a lot of time and effort to getting some bio articles to FA in time for cricket world cup. --Dweller 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rwandan Genocide was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 23:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Is this users actions allowed?

  • Hey there (:O) ... we have an ongoing debate over here on the status of an article. Now the thing I wanted to bring up was the editing and removal and well forceful rhetoric stating the result of the debate before it has even been decided. The one causing all this is User:Ideogram. I have tried so hard to be loving and understanding during this debate, but now I dont know if what the user is doing is right or wrong. I dont know who to go to, so I figure I may ask someone who is very familiar with the wikipedia world and how this should be dealt with maybe? Not sure. Please help. (:O) ---nima baghaei (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church

I'm knocking it on the head any minute now. Not sure if I'll be back in a meaningful way before Monday. Hope it goes well in the meantime. I think you could do with some more help - how about dropping a line to some of the Collingwood collaborators? --Dweller 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see you then. I'm away for most of the w/end too, off to Southwold, how quaint! By the way, Church has an explanation now. You'd never guess it, not in a million years... have a good weekend. The Rambling Man 15:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thanks! It's now set. Adam Cuerden talk 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher_Lotito

I have provided a detailed rebuttable to claims that I am a non-notable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20#Christopher_Lotito -- since you last weighed in on the topic. Please do look at it and consider the new information I've provided. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&oldid=110368804"