User talk:The Rambling Man

DYK for Julia Kronlid

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You know what?

I'm pleased you're back. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Small welcome back gift: this is genius --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, it's neat. I think I've seen it being used before in a similar fashion for skyscraper panoramas... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm

On this thread: The comment you object to was included as an example of a personal attack in both the original motion to admonish FPAS and in the revised version that eventually passed. So you can argue that the arbs were inconsistent, but it doesn't really make sense to hassle the clerks about it. I'm glad you decided to return, but remaining frustration in need of venting should at least be directed toward the people actually involved in it (or better yet, dispensed with at the gym or something instead of here). My talk page has been strangely free of flaming and complaints this month. Maybe everyone is getting distracted by the cat video. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought clerks are involved in arbcom cases. In fact, until this last one, I thought they were very competent and able to think for themselves. Still, all this hand-wringing and claims of "voluntary positions" is becoming a little tiresome, we're all volunteers, and none of us should have to wait for nearly two weeks for a personal attack to be addressed. Back to that cat video. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome

You wrote:

Thanks...for your contributions to the ref desks...

You're welcome. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Another kitten for you!

I just love your big bold message that we are here to build an encyclopaedia and not a chatroom. Could not agree more.

Jack | ^{talk page} 13:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• He says, chatting on a talk page! Harrias ^talk 16:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For closing the AfD and keeping Yuji Hyakutake. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Word of caution

The last part of the last line of this diff [1] could be taken as a WP:NPA, even though you're vague and not naming anyone specific. Far from being a clear-cut NPA to refactor it myself, but you might want to consider your own edit to remove that. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. This is a nomination about a British person so by 3am we'll be inundated by Americans calling foul on it. There's nothing personal about stating that a generic group of individuals will vote generically about something they know nothing about. If you honestly believe it to be in any way "personal" (and that is a stretch of which I cannot imagine, unless I've just insulted each of 300+ million individuals personally) then please re-factor it to your own personal satisfaction but be sure to include a clear reason to do so in your edit summary so we can all remember it for years to come. So, to clarify, no need to "caution" me on anything here. Please refactor that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

True, it's not a "personal" attack at all. However, it does nothing to contribute to a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, degrades the already sad environment at ITN/C, and after enough repetition, gets really fucking old. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy to be proven wrong, let's see shall we? p.s. What really gets fucking old is the idea that this is American Wikipedia. That's really tiresome. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey! would you like to look at my FLC? I would appreciate it. Thanks.Krish | Talk 15:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi TRM. I've scheduled List of Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction winners for March 7. This is in honor of International Women's Day, which is on the 8th of the month. Although we won't be able to have a list run on the day itself, I believe that this is a good choice for the day before the holiday. The blurb is here; as always, please feel free to provide input. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Help please?

Hi, TRM - Bluerasberry started a GA review at the end of January on the BLP, Gabor B. Racz, and just advised me that he is unable to complete the review, [2]. Montanabw pinged you from Bluerasberry's TP, and I thought that since he gave the go-ahead to get another reviewer to complete the review it would be ok for me to just ask you directly. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your correction on Port Phillip v Van Diemen's Land, 1851. I had a question that the last section of the article features a line "losing 7 wickets". Should this be changed also to "losing seven wickets"? Thank you in advance for your suggestion. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I think in your example it's okay to stick to numerals because you have other values, although not directly comparable, in the same sentence. It would look a little odd to suddenly switch from numerals to words to numerals mid-sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Makes sense. Thank you once again. Xender Lourdes (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

ISIS, really?

I was reading the refdesk RfC and this, erm, stood out a little. Statements of the form "[something that happened on a website] is like [violent political regime]" are pretty much always over the top. The rhetoric in that thread is really too much - "arbcom-favored admins protecting themselves" and so forth, too. (Come on, don't insult people by associating them with the least popular fifteen people on the project ;) FPAS is just like anyone else in that it is not reasonable to expect him to indefinitely tolerate harassment by a banned user. Please tone it down a notch or three. My cat video has wandered off into the archives; I guess I'll have to find another one and post in the RfC or something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the point remains, one user is categorically not solving this problem and is categorically destroying a fundamental tenet of this website. You and others need to realise that this is a problem that needs to be solved creatively, not using the current methods which are damaging Wikipedia to a point where it may soon be beyond repair. Certainly, as a start, we need to remove "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" from the main page until such a time that this kind of narrow-minded, obsessed behaviour continues. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You "really believe" that an admin temporarily disabling some of the features of a website on a small number of pages to prevent harassment is meaningfully equivalent to a violent organization irreparably destroying historical artifacts for political reasons? I think you may be exaggerating the significance of this just a tad ;) I suppose this is one of those disputes that has been going on for so long that the people involved in it have lost track of what it looks like from the outside, but I promise that it is comically over the top to talk about Wikipedia's imminent destruction because - looking at the first IP question from the science desk - this guy might have to wait another vegetable-free few hours for someone to respond to an edit request. If what you mean is a commitment to anonymous editing on principle, you're undermining your case with the overheated personal rhetoric. (And anyway, if it's the principle at issue, isn't your time better spent objecting to the spread of the 500/30 thing than complaining about a cobwebby corner that isn't even part of the encyclopedia proper?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe the actions of Perfect et al isn't solving anything. I challenge you to prove otherwise. The self-preservation society is alive and kicking I'm afraid. For what it's worth, overheated personal rhetoric can be found easily in many of Perfect's accustions, such as claiming that I am malevolently proxy editing to harass him. Just check that out once again. It's useful to remember how personal his attacks have become while his actions have done nothing at all to improve the situation. Piss poor problem solving techniques, but advocated by a large number of sheep. Different approaches are needed, the "harassment" argument is wearing super thin. What part of these actions are improving Wikipedia for our millions of readers and anonymous editors? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

RBI + protection have been demonstrated to work on all other pages at Wikipedia, so why should they not apply to the ref desks? Why should the ref desks be exempt from standard procedures? Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Either you're being ironic or you have no idea about the differences in blocking main space and talk pages. I'll leave it to you to research that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

All of that is awfully easy to say when you're not the one being harassed. As an empirical matter, yes, you're right that the current approach isn't "solving" anything, but it is at least controlling the exposure of readers to garbage posts and of editors to harassing trolls, and it is consistent with the typical approach to similar behavior elsewhere on the project. I'm afraid I don't follow your post above; WP:RBI is just as effective on talk-page trolling and soapboxing as it is on article-space activity. (And as for these millions of readers, it appears that the science desk gets the most pageviews, at about 830 hits per day. The article science gets about 5600, and is uncontroversially semi-protected. The science desk is just ahead of RNA interference, just short of nucleolus, and just about even with microRNA.) What do you suggest to solve this problem, then, assuming that we're not going to accept "do nothing and let people exploit our resources for harassment and trolling" as a viable option? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You and the rest of Arbcom have looked at this in detail so you should already know that the vast majority of the IP posts are simply links to edits made by FPAS. Reducing IP access to the ref desks 100% undermines their purpose and destroys a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, as you all know. And why would you think it relevant to compare pageviews of articles to ref desks? They serve completely different purposes. As for semi-protection of articles, again it's a different argument. The ref desks are talk pages where semi-protection renders them useless to IPs. I'm not suggesting I have a solution, but if you care to drop by the talk page of Ref Desk, you'll see plenty of brainstorming going on, rather than just the usual mindless and destructive continual reverting and protection which is clearly being proven not to be effective in any sense whatsoever. If anything it's drawing more and more attention to the very edits FPAS is trying to hide. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My point in mentioning the ref desk pageviews was to highlight how vastly out of proportion it is to claim that semiprotecting those pages somehow destroys Wikipedia. In practice, the ref desks are not widely used or read, and we're not "the encyclopedia that also has a low-traffic reference desk that anyone can troll". You've been repeating this "fundamental tenet of Wikipedia" argument without really engaging with the objections to it or making your case that there is some reason the ref desks should be uniquely outside the scope of WP:RBI. You're right that there's been a Streisand effect here, but a significant part of the responsibility for it belongs to the people who keep kicking up a fuss every time the usual steps to stop abusive IPs are taken.

In any case, I wasn't intending to drag you into yet another thread on the substance of the matter, but to encourage you to participate less aggressively in the existing ones. I don't have any new ideas either - though I do think the edit filter is worth investigating - but it's pretty clear that rhetoric about mindless destruction and so forth is not actually advancing your case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue discussing the relentless pointlessness of the current approach by Arbcom's favourite admin. I'm somewhat befuddled by the fact that you (and perhaps Arbcom) seem to be confused by the fact that protecting a ref desk talk page is in some way comparable to protecting a mainspace article. This is, of course, nonsense. One of the primary principles of Wikipedia is that it's available for anyone for to edit. Which now, because of the dullard approach of our prefects, it is not. If an article is stalled in time, so what. But if a talk page that's explicitly designed for newcomers to edit is protected such that no-one can edit it, that's bullshit I'm afraid. But the good folks like you who work hard to try to convince us that this kind of thing is acceptable and just forget about the ref desks and ignore the IPs who want to edit and undermine the fundamental tenet of Wikipedia are clearly in the majority. I'd now just prefer to see an edit notice at the top of all ref desks that apologise to our good faith editors to let them know exactly why Wikipedia has pissed all over its own raison d'etre and allowed a few sniffy admins to control the area most likely to be useful to anonymous editors in a global encyclopedia. In conclusion, I don't have a case to advance. Arbcom made sure of that by notifying the rest of Wikipedia that they were shit-scared to do anything of any substance in light of FPAS' abuse of his position. Trying to convince me or any of the other disappointed onlookers otherwise is a waste of time and makes you and Arbcom look worse by the edit. Just give FPAS the free pass you all agreed upon, continue to allow the problem to manifest and expand and expose itself further and further, and look forward to that point where you're not Arbcom any longer and can finally relieve the stress by spilling the beans on the bollocks that took place during that most absurd of "cases/motions/kangaroo courts". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Rambling Man, I'm probably with you on the question of semi-protection (I read over the entire discussion a few days ago, and while I'm still waffling you make some good points, here as well), but the ISIS comparison is absurd and FPAS is not ArbCom's favorite admin. (I'm on ArbCom and I know who it is, and I'm not telling you--no, it's not Jimbo Wales either; I say this to talk page stalkers who post on the W Review.) As an admin, you should know, in my opinion, that raising the temperature in a room or a discussion is rarely helpful. You don't like me much, and you don't like ArbCom much, but in your heart of hearts you know I'm right: cooler metaphors should prevail. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

About the favorite admin, Drmies is pulling your leg. When have fifteen Wikipedians ever agreed on a favorite anything? ;) OK, we haven't told him yet, but it's actually him. You can see as well as anyone that there was a broad range of perspectives on what to do with the case request, and "FPAS gets a free pass" was not the conclusion we reached.

the area most likely to be useful to anonymous editors - ah, {{citation needed}}. Lack of evidence for this perceived significance of the reference desks is exactly what I'm talking about with the traffic numbers. (Just me, not "arbcom".) I'm not trying to convince anyone of what specific actions are or aren't acceptable. I am/was trying to convince you to question your own premises on the matter, rather than - as above - contributing to raising the temperature. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That set of motions and the monotony leading up to it, including a direct ignorance of involved admin abuse, including repeated ignorance of a direct personal attack in FPAS' statement, despite being asked to remove it, and accusations of bad faith to the point of stating that I was "proxying for a sockpuppet", all going without any tangible resolution, is quite possibly Arbcom's worst hour. As for Ref Desks, if you hold them in such low esteem, let's permanently semi-protect them and add a note at the top of each page to the effect that only logged-in users can participate. At least it's an honest and overt declaration of the corruption of one of Wikipedia's fundamental tenets. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I can read all the old archives, so I'm pretty sure arbcom's done worse ;) Though maybe not to you in particular. As I think I've said before, the comment in FPAS' statement was specifically mentioned as an example of a personal attack in both the original admonishment motion and in the one that passed. You can call us inconsistent for not having removed it, but mostly I think it was just underestimating the time it would take to reach a conclusion.

I don't hold the ref desks in low esteem; I just want to be realistic about the effects here. It is not The End Of Wikipedia As We Know It if someone who's spent 20 years not eating his vegetables has to wait another few hours for his edit request about it to go through. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not seeing what's happening. It's not a "few hours", it's pretty much indefinitely protected these days. As for "admonishment", that's laughable. I'm not even sure anyone received talkpage notification that the kangaroo court had reached any kind of tangible or useful conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, you got a notification and then blanked it... useful is debatable, but "less useless than available alternatives" applies.

I meant the length of time it would take for an edit request to be acted upon, but just for curiosity's sake I queried the logs...

Page	Last protection	Admin
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing	06 Feb - 08 Feb 2016	Future Perfect at Sunrise
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment	12 Jul - 13 Jul 2015	Gogo Dodo
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities	21 Jan - 03 Mar 2016	Future Perfect at Sunrise
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language	21 Jan - 03 Mar 2016	Future Perfect at Sunrise
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics	03 Feb - 06 Feb 2016	Only
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science	03 Feb - 06 Feb 2016	Future Perfect at Sunrise
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous	14 Feb - 14 Feb 2016	Elockid
Wikipedia:Reference desk	12 Apr - 12 Apr 2015	Jac16888
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk	10 Feb - 13 Feb 2016	Ian.thomson

So there are only two current long protections from FPAS, and those are the only two desks currently protected, after an unsuccessful trial unprotection in January. A spot-check of the last couple of days of edit requests shows that they've been acted upon in under an hour. Not exactly the apocalypse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No-one mentioned the apocalypse. The fact of the matter is that the current approach is doing nothing but encouraging the trolling. Preventing all IPs from editing these pages is simply wrong. At least it is without a very clear notice explaining why the basic principles of Wikipedia no longer apply there. And with five of the desks only becoming unprotected within the last week, I think your fact-finding mission to be mildly interesting, but your analysis to be somewhat superficial. Much like most people's approach to this, cure the symptoms, not the problem. It will not go away with this approach which is damaging and unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but if you can't cure the problem, you treat the symptoms.

"Mildly interesting" is a step up from most of my articles, which are crushingly boring and obscure. Don't make me post graphs. If the squabbling doesn't stop I'm going to bore everyone with graphs ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Not if treating the symptoms makes the problem worse. Short term gain for long-term loss. It's a mistake, and blind adherence to continuing to make it is a mistake, and defending it is a mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman

Thanks for your edit on Mustafizur Rahman per the [[WP:MOS|manual style guideline. The problem is the hyphens are usually like this when I mobile edit. is there any way to overcome this? Thanks again! Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can see the little bar at the bottom while you edit which contains en dash, em dash, degree symbol etc, I don't think so... Alternatively you can use – but that's a bit of a pain from a mobile. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That will do! Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Central Recreation Ground, Hastings

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What sport were they playing? ;p Stephen 08:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it was cheese rolling... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Help?

TRM, any chance you could throw Naborr into a DYK prep set? I'd like to get wikicup points for it by the round 1 deadline, but I asked someone else and got slapped. I am absolutely willing to put any other wikicup participant's DYK into a prep if I know about it, I just can't add my own and the round ends on the 27th, with prep 6 scheduled for the 26th, so... Any way you can help? Montanabw^(talk) 11:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your work patching up DYK-nominated articles. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Padma Vibhushan award recipients FLC

Hey. I have renominated the list as last nomination was archived without conclusion. As you provided comments last time and I made a few changes post last nomination, could you please revisit and see if you find any issues for the nomination here? - Vivvt (Talk) 08:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

ITN image

FYI I protected it on Commons. —howcheng {chat} 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder...

Have you ever, just once, convinced a single person to agree with you in a discussion (such as an ITN nomination) by belittling them and telling them they're wrong simply because they disagree with your viewpoint? If so, please point me to examples. You're like Medeis- even when I actually **do** agree with you, I feel just a bit bad about voicing my opinion, as I don't want to validate yours. -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Who are you and what do you do here? Not much it appears. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Users' rights

I'll edit whatever I choose. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Try improving what you do for the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian Middleton

Yes it will be up in a few minutes. Many Thanks (P.S I will link the 2016 also).

Refs for prizes

Re Nikolaus Harnoncourt (a distant relative): bad enough that he died. A tag on the awards section tells me that it is questionable if he earned these award. It isn't. Take the first, Erasmus Prize, which - as the article tells us - he got in 1980, Wikipedia in 2015. Do we need a ref for that? - How about tagging individual prizes without an article instead, if you really have to tag something, - which I doubt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've only tagged that section because there are so many unlinked or redlinked "prizes" without inline citations. These are the sort of things that determine the suitability of an individual for the RD section in my opinion, so it's important we see those items referenced. Sorry for the loss. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't assume that just because a prize is linked, that the linked article has suitable referencing, take Hans von Bülow Medal for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Back to the general lament about the different referencing in the German Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jonathan Agnew

ps: this Swedish opera singer: are her prizes contentious? doubtful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for the Agnew thing. As for the opera singer, it's a BLP, so if it's to be featured on the main page it should be referenced, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you see my comment on the talk, - to drop these seven prizes because her achievements are much more convincing than seven red links to Swedish long lists: not even informative? I have more important things to do than going after refs for something of that little importance. - In general: I understand that we have to reference contentious and doubtful things, but could assume a little good faith in the Swedish Wikipedia. However, my second article was a translation from German, and I remember well how difficult it was to find refs in retrospect, for one of (then) five cellist mentioned in the cello article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen your comments. But I'm not advocating dropping anything. Just find some references. Or if not, move the awards to the talk page. Or ask at Swedish Wikipedia for references. What I'm worried about is posting BLPs to the main page without references. It sets a bad and dangerous precedent, that anyone can write anything about anyone, without citation, and it can make it to the main page without any real scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked up refs for her roles in plays and discography because I found that was information worth having. It took hours. I don't have more time, not for information I think is kind of redundant. Who will look at a fifth prize. - I dropped the two film roles (which are on IMDb) but feel someone else should either look up refs or drop the seven prizes in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Margareta Hallin, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Awards are verified on the Swedish Wikipedia. That is enough verification for now. Wikipedia only requires that content be verifiable, which it is. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame we can no longer take Twinkle away from people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE should be tested before this kind of usage is allowed. It's misuse enough to have the rights removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your helpful copy edits to my recent Quality improvement project, The Signpost (Wikipedia).

Much appreciated ! :)

Hope you're doing well,

— Cirt (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, no problem. Glad you're still doing good work. As you can see from my talkpage, a bit of a mixed bag for me lately, but generally good. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 28, 2016

Nicely done. I noticed your edit just now ... while you're thinking about this one, what do you think of "Cambridge's win prevented what would have been Oxford's seventeenth win out of the last eighteen races"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the repeat of "win" there, maybe substitute the first for "victory" or "success"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Even better. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

We're at 996 characters now. Out of fairness to ITN, I'm usually keeping it above 1050 or 1100. Any ideas? - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

FLC request

Can you review this candidate? It's been sitting in the queue for quite sometime. —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Brussels

Sorry, I didn't realise the metro had been targeted as well. Please move the page back to 2016 Brussels attacks. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No probs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Help finding sources?

Hey. Sorry to bother. I've noticed youve written a lot of good articles on the Boat Race and was wondering if you could help me with a related issue. I've been trying to write an article on Oxford University Women's Lightweight Rowing Club, but I've had a problem finding good sources to use. There's quite a few news mentions, but nothing which seems like it would fit in a more general article. Do you know of any books or other sources that could be useful here? Brustopher (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brustopher. I'll have a look at my books when I get home but most of them relate exclusively to the men's race and probably pre-date the OUWLRC's involvement in the races. Even their official website seems to be missing the "history" page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

T:DYK

While I don't agree with your action at T:DYK (as you can probably tell), I had forgotten that we were editing a fully portected page and that my revert (and then your re-revert) were technically wheel warring. "Editing" doesn't feel like an admin action, but in this case I shouldn't have reverted your change. My apologies for that.

In other news, I have started WP:VPR#RFC: Corrections on Main Page?. Fram (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Just wanted to make sure we have an agreement that the main page is used for this kind of thing, after all it isn't just DYK that post errors, hence WP:ERRORS. Plus your disclaimer was suboptimal. Looking forward to seeing the outcome of the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your script

I think you may have an error in your find & replace script – see what happened to the word "showed" in this edit. Cheers, Number 57 17:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, it's not my script but my error in using it without checking. Thanks for the note, I've fixed that particular issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Recorded In Hollywood Records

Thanks for you tweaks to Recorded In Hollywood Records. Before this runs on the front page (dyk), would you mind taking a look a the re-written lead and removing the tag if you find it appropriate to do so? thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, if you can, put the artists into two (or maybe three) columns because right now there's LOTS of whitespace. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks again. I've put it into 2 column, that's a great idea. 3 might be better, but it exceeds my sorry technical capabilities. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits on Sylvia Anderson

Hi there, I've been offline for about a week or so and just noticed your edits on Sylvia Anderson; many thanks, the article has quite high page views I think, so it's great that it's continued to be improved. Cheers, MurielMary (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for International marriage (Japan)

An article that you have been involved in editing—International marriage (Japan) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.77.86 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)