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 Seattle (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 1 April 2017 (→hi: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

9 March

  • Stephen - queue 4 - " can be demolished" is not suitable in tone, the article doesn't use this phrasing. In fact, the article puts it much better: "The larvae from a single egg cluster can destroy a whole cabbage or cauliflower plant". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Devoured. Rewording involved too much repetition. Stephen
Can't find this one? Stephen 09:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, it's now in queue 2, with a comma... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was a duplicate, removed less than an hour ago... But The ed17 left the approved set (queue 4) one hook down. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I made others aware of at the time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was stating a fact. And trying to fix the problem left behind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you ping me? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added, but no idea how to pull a hook. Stephen 09:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRM that this bit of information is dubious in a living person bio, implying as it does that there was some impropriety in his draft procedure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may need to be reported at ERRORS or at WT:DYK as Stephen isn't comfortable pulling the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled it and turned queue 5 back into prep 5, as I don't have the time to find another hook at the moment, and this lets anyone, not just an admin do it. Harrias talk 09:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will do something in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done both. I could link Northern Rhodesia as well but perhaps that would be overlinking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Softlavender no, that's not true at all. I don't suffer fools gladly, but I also don't like the fact that an admin has been completely let off for calling me a prick, and an asshole and tell me "fuck you". I never resorted to those absolute and overt personal attacks. I had also attempted to place many of those comments initially raised into some kind of context, but all I'm hearing back from some quarters is that I'm wrong. Oddly I'm hearing in some numbers that I'm not wrong. But that's the nature of the subjective Arbcom sanction. I've never said that admins are "admins are 100% of the problem", diff for that direct quote please. In fact, as we have so few admins, they are very seldom the problem, but when they are part of the problem, fellow admins shouldn't be ignoring it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are proving what you were attempting to refute: " ... TRM keeps harping ad nauseum on "it's them not me" and "admins are 100% of the problem" [NOTE: an obvious figure of speech, not a quote], despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility". You cannot refrain from sniping at admins, and you cannot refrain from blaming others. Please re-read WP:NOTTHEM. If you have a possibly sanctionable complaint about another editor(s), take it to an appropriate noticeboard or their talk page (when you are unblocked). At this point I think you are starting to alienate even those who are or were or might have been in favor of unblocking or reducing the block. Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is clever. Attack a guy (repeatedly, endlessly, and then when he defends himself tell him he's to blame for 'harping on ad nauseam'. How about leaving him alone and then see how much he's harping? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never attacked TRM (much less "repeatedly, endlessly"), and if you do not think this opening sally today [1] was perpetuating the behavior ad nauseum despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility, then that's fine, we can agree to disagree. Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clever and unfortunate. Softlavender is well aware of the personal attacks directed towards me yet continues to do absolutely nothing. I suggest you stop making up quotes of mine, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have never made up quotes of yours (and when I do actually quote somebody, I always supply diffs unless my reply is directly below their statement). I am not interested taking actions that you need to take but which you avoid taking in favor of blaming others. Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that there are several people who are happy to allow, even enable, certain individuals to make numerous personal attacks without addressing them. That you feel the need for me to take action in this regard is testimony to the bureaucracy that these kinds of situations inevitably devolve into instead of actively taking real and responsible action. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responsible for the actions of others. I have never enabled anybody (with the possible exception of one senior editor who was reported at ANI, but when my apparent enabling was pointed out to me I abruptly stopped). People are responsible for their own actions. If you feel strongly about the behavior of others, it is your responsibility to address that, in an appropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're an admin. You should take appropriate action against people who personally attack normal editors, part of admin responsibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, at the risk of stepping on toes, but Softlavender is not an admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, then they have no responsibility whatsoever to do anything about these personal attacks. My error, apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, TRM. Yet even if I were an admin, the responsibility for your own grievances lies with you. Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will have to agree to disagree. Admins are responsible for protecting others from egregious personal attacks, especially from other admins. This "in the club" thing is too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 "I don't think the root cause of this issue is the remedy being ambiguous or unclear", me neither, it's not the "root cause" by any means, but trying to solve a problem by applying a messy, subjective, woolly filter on top is by far from ideal. I did state this way back, that one man's "belittling"/"bullying" is another man's "whatever", and as such, the sanction was always open to interpretation/abuse. Nothing doing. Anyway, just wanted to let you know this isn't news, it's olds. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 " It looks like he's keen on the idea of clarifying the restriction because he thinks it's being abused rather than because he doesn't understand it." sorry, I always understood it and I always knew it was nonsense. Please don't ever think I didn't understand it. What I didn't understand was why so many learned individuals ("Arbcom") thought the wording of it was appropriate. I always thought it could be interpreted entirely subjectively, i.e. it wasn't objective. Whether it was "abused" or not is a different discussion entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLauba "Otherwise, quite frankly, the best thing to spare you another year of increased disenchantment and pile-ons is to scramble your password and walk away. This is either your last AE, or the beginning of the end. " really? really? Remind me to not ever vote for you as a councillor or at Arbcom! I'm fine with all of Wikipedia and it's castes. I'll keep going and making sure it's in a good state until some bans me or indef blocks me. I'm not walking away, that's stupid and counter-productive for the project - I make more positive mainspace contributions in a day than most of the people involved in this discussion make in a year. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do, but you are also a target to the many enemies you have made over the years, who will not give you an inch. The point you're missing is that if you let resentment and bitterness continue eating at you, such as evidenced in your last couple of posts here, the coming year is going to be a succession of further indignities that will kill away the last ounce of joy and pride you had for your contributions by the time you get banned.
I don't believe we ever interacted even during my short active period, but I became first aware of you when you laid down your crat bit in the context of the date delinking case. I found that admirable back in the day - when I passed my RfA later that same year, I always set myself a principle that should a case be opened in which I'm a party, I'd lay down the tools immediately, based on your example. If you can change, do. If you can't, the 2009 TRM knew to walk away from a problem on his own terms. That's all I'm saying (and I'm not standing for any further elections, thank you). Anyway, I've overstayed my welcome here, or any value I could add to this. Good bye. MLauba (Talk) 23:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Race

Black Kite don't worry, I won't be able to update the article so it won't run this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-imposed conversation limit suggestion

Hello all. How's about this: I'll place a self-imposed limit of one response to any editor with whom there is any disagreement. That response will be neither "belittling" nor "bullying" but will inform the editor that I will not be continuing with the disagreement. I believe that wording and its interpretation is still highly subjective and any such commons need context, but that didn't seem necessarily the way the enforcement was conducted. However, a limitation on my interactions with editors with whom I may be in disagreement seems a good place to start. It's my pledge that a lot of the scenarios which were brought up will not occur again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, maybe you could direct those admins at the AE page who think I'm adamantly adamant that nothing will change when I recommence editing to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good compromise, I'm pretty sure none of those diffs cited by The ed17 are first responses so it should really curtail anything that way inclined. And then we'll need to take a look at the personal attacks on me which have gone completely unaddressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure you don't harp on about the proposal ad nauseam, or you'll be blocked for 6 months. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the bit where they say "obviously not a quote" when it's "obviously a quote" because "it's in quote marks". There aren't even any supporting diffs. If the shoe was on the foot, it'd be struck or the jury would be told to "not take it into account" as unverifiable. Never mind. Let's see how much good faith can be applied to my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLauba I don't really understand the logic there. I'll get unblocked at some point and if I don't try this, then I'll get reblocked at some point thereafter. I guess the point is whether it reduces the block length or not, it's worth a go. I'd sooner sit out the whole block than be prevented from working on reducing the errors that go to the main page, so no, I don't want a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban is not on the table anyway, as it would require another run at ARCA, it was more of me musing whether removing you from a high stakes / high stress environment for a while would provide a way forward. I understand that you are passionate about the quality of the main page, but I'm not currently seeing a good solution that will not bring you back to AE within weeks of your unblock. I was actually considering reversing my vote for reducing the block length since yesterday. I'd be delighted to get reassurances that this would be wrong on my part. That being said, I understand you owe me nothing, and my one voice won't sway the current consensus anyway. MLauba (Talk) 17:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, my most recent 20 or 30 thousand contributions have been focused on keeping errors off the main page. That's what I do. If I eventually do it so badly that I am banned from Wikipedia, I'll only have myself to blame. Of course you're entitled to change your mind, you don't need to explain that to me. I can see how the trend is heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion at User talk:Sandstein#What would it take?. I'd like your feedback as to whether or not that would be something you'd be willing to go for. Clarifying what "insulting or belittling" means would seem to help you better understand what you can and can not do (something that many of the admins commenting correctly identify as a problem), and making it less vague would have the added bonus of cutting down on the vagueness being abusively used as a weapon against you. If it works on a voluntary basis, ARCA might be willing to formalize it. What say you? The WordsmithTalk to me 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification/rewording would good; Sandstein admitted that he took no context into account when making the one-month block based on those diffs. There's a stark difference, even in admins here, in the interpretation of those diffs: they vary from "well a one-month block is well deserved" to "nothing to see here" which demonstrates that the initial sanction was very poorly worded. I would certainly be interested in investigating that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But actually, this is all in vain if User:Sandstein's chilling threat that anyone changing the block duration would be subject to sanctions. I'm confused, perhaps the blocking admin would be able to expand on why it was a month, why he hasn't responded to others (per ADMINACCT) and why anyone modifying the block duration would be subject to their own set of sanctions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein's threat is an empty one, and I ignored it. AE sanctions that are overturned out of process are subject to sanctions. However, right now we're following the exact process laid out. Even if Sandstein declines to overturn, it can still be done by consensus of uninvolved admins. And that does not necessarily require unanimity. By my count, there are currently 9 uninvolved admins who endorsed shortening the block with no other conditions, and 6 who wanted to keep it at one month. One of those six has already said they would be agreeable to either your proposal or mine. Of course numbers are not everything, as you well know from your time as an admin, but I do think we're moving in the right direction towards solving the root cause of the trouble you've been having (rather than just this latest iteration of it). Most of the others who wanted to keep it cited your lack of understanding what was not acceptable, so clarifying it should go a long way towards demonstrating to them that the block is no longer necessary. On another note, the way you politely disagreed with Softlavender just now is exactly the right way to do so, and I'm encouraged by that. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again. And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Look how the mighty have fallen. Once an admin, now a disgraced and blocked editor. How does it feel to be brought down a peg, hmm? 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:73 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It feels pretty crap, but not for the reasons you've posted. I couldn't care less about being an admin or a 'crat. Being "brought down a peg", well that comes with the territory. It's fine, things like this remind me of cop shows where a really successful and good-looking cop ends up wrongly imprisoned, surrounded by his former foe. Regardless of their intimidation tactics, he wins out. As for "how the might have fallen", nice literature glance, but I'd hardly consider admins to be "mighty", something of the opposite in reality. I do appreciate your comments, it's no surprise that you're hiding by an anonymous IP, but thanks for everything you've done to improve Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry to undo, Ealdgyth but you called it "grave-dancing", not sure you know something I don't know. This is simply an aggressive, aggrieved banned user who I've had to deal with for the last 10 years. If you're directing me to a grave somewhere, please let me know. I won't be hopping into it quite yet, too much to do, too many people to discuss! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured you didn't need the bating/trolling. But if you're fine with it, no skin off my nose. Just trying to help out and keep trolling at bay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to this

User:Sandstein is now effectively requesting I grovel or make some trite comment to appease him. I don't really know what to say. In my world, we make objectives that are achievable, and can be measured. I made a concrete proposal to limit my exposure to situations where my reactions may be contrary to some people's interpretation of the Arbcom sanctions. I say that because the sanctions are very much open to interpretation, and Sandstein himself admitted that he based his one-month ban on a cursory glance at the diffs provided, not at the context of the discussions. I did more than that, and looked at each discussion, distilled a theme and evolved a possible solution. Yet that's not enough. And in the meantime, Sandstein is threatening other admins with sanctions if they adjust my block period. I didn't know this kind of "uber-user" existed. In summary, I've made a suggestion as to how to best progress this, to benefit Wikipedia, and I await others' input. I suppose the other thing I could have done was to grit my teeth and say "yes, everything I've ever said was wrong and rude and belittling and bullying and I'm sorry", but that's nonsense too. At some point, we'll need a grown-up to actually look at this and make a decision on whether striving for a process-waving "sorry" is better than a practical suggestion to improve.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I forgot to mention, there's zero risk for Wikipedia here. Sandstein etc will happily indef block me should I put one foot out of their interpreted line, so I'm unclear what the problem is. I've made a practical suggestion to reduce conflict, I've heard plenty of hate directed to me, including the admin's "fuck you, asshole", etc, what now? Sandstein, tell me what you want to hear, and I'll type it out. If I don't abide by it, you get to indef me. Simple, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that "et al." is supposed to be used to mean other people, while "etc." is to be used to mean other (non-human) things. I think you want "Sandstein, et al." --MZMcBride (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, etc just means "and the others". But thanks for your message. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not according to both our article (et cetera#Similar Latin expressions) and the New Oxford American Dictionary. From its usage notes on the "et cetera" entry: "This abbreviation should be used for things, not for people. Et al. (an abbreviation of et alii, ‘and other people, and others’) is properly used for others (people) too numerous to mention, as in a list of multiple authors: Bancroft, Fordwick, et al." I suppose we could consider users and user names to be things instead of people, but that seems weird.
And no problem! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well by now I'm sure you realise that many users are dogs, trees, minerals, astral bodies etc. Once again, thanks for your insightful interjection, it has truly enriched this talk page, which is mainly bereft of any intellectual substance. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I don't know about astral bodies, but some editors are rays of sunshine, others, not so much. The problem is, we need to deal with all of them, and sometimes, suffer fools, gladly or no. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the the discussion at AE coming to a resolution any time soon. Perhaps you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee directly (well, via proxy), with a narrow focus on reducing the block length. I think in light of mitigating circumstances, the Committee would agree it was overlong, and then, they can direct to reduce it themselves. El_C 08:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C but as you can see from the various contributors, there's no chance that anything I say or do will be sufficient. Each individual seems to have their unique version of magic passwords that I need to utter in order to gain their forgiveness, I did what I thought was the right thing, to pledge a self-imposed discussion criterion to prevent the supposed disputes, but that wasn't enough. I've asked people what they want to hear, nothing doing. A month-long block after which I will simply resume editing with that pledge in place is no different to a week-long block after which I will simply resume editing with that pledge in place. In fact, if there's so much confidence that I'll just get blocked again, wouldn't it make more sense to unblock me sooner rather than later to get the inevitable over with? All this is now achieving is more and more poor quality articles going to the main page. So that's a real victory for Wikipedia and our readers. There's no logic at all behind this, which is incredibly frustrating, but I appreciate your efforts enormously. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is before the Committee after all and I just missed it. I have added my own brief comment that I think summarizes the issues I take with the sacntion. El_C 20:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam nor do I believe I said any of those interactions were as a result of your personal attacks. Although did you include the timing of the "prick" attack in your assertion? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam here you go, January 30. "Prickgate". I think that falls squarely in the centre of the diffs presented, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El C in response to Floquenbeam's claim about the personal attacks coming after all those diffs, see above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. El_C 23:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 March

Yes, it was one review, as I think the quotation marks show, but other reviews are similar. What would you recommend? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"one reviewer called it" or "was described as ... by one reviewer". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more elegant? It should end with the quote, not with the one reviewer (or "a reviewer"?) who'd get undue weight. I am also afraid it will get too long to be interesting. How about simply "was described as"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I've tweaked it. Stephen 10:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Nothing wrong with The Lord is my Shepherd? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen and I have dealt with all these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 March

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth - prep 2 - "leading to the eventual downfall of the Khmer Rouge regime?" this looks like a stretch to me. Our Khmer Rouge article makes no such claims, neither Gooch nor her organisation are even mentioned. The quote from The Guardian seems to be more implying that the actions of Gooch et al. resulted in a portion of the Khmer Rouge defecting, not the downfall of the regime. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, I was the nominator for this hook and I had some difficultly in trying to phrase this one. What I am trying to say is the Australian umpire Phillip Gillespie made his first-class umpiring debut in the Sheffield Shield match between NSW and Victoria in 2016 and during that match NSW bowler Doug Bollinger took a hat-trick in a single over while Gillespie was the umpire at the bowler's end. In the nomination I was happy for the hook to be rephrased. Do you think it can be further improved? – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ianblair23, I know exactly what the hook meant, after I'd read it twice, but I feat it'll be lost on our readers. My suggestion was to link "end" because umpire's ends aren't abundantly clear to the novice reader at all. I'm afraid my honest instinct was that the end the hat-trick was taken was not really that interesting, it could be that we could just re-phrase it to say that he umpired while a hat-trick was taken on his debut? What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I point I was trying to make is that he wasn't the square leg umpire during the over. The dismissals were caught, bowled and the hat-trick delivery was given out lbw! But I think you are right, unfortunately not all of our readers are cricketing tragics like us and adding the word end may lose them. So how about "... that a hat-trick was taken during Phillip Gillespie's first-class debut as a cricket umpire? – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ianblair23 I think that's way better. My heart sank when you said point was it wasn't when he was square leg umpire. That would have made a sweet quirky hook, something like "despite not being at square leg, Gillespie umpired a hat-trick at his end"....! By the way, you mention "in a single over", aren't most hat-tricks taken in a single over? I do know of a few that were taken across two overs, but is that really something that needs noting? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, most hat-tricks are but I just clarifying that the hat-trick wasn't taken over two overs or even two innings. Here is a great article that discusses unusual hat-tricks. My favourite would have to be Merv Hughes where he took his hat-trick over three overs and two innings!
But back to the hook. I think we will leave it as written above. I will modify Prep 2 accordingly. Thanks TRM. This is conversation was exactly what I was after when I wrote that rephrasing comments in the nom. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howcheng - tomorrow - " Shushan Purim begins at sunset", the article says "Shushan Purim falls on Adar 15" (which apparently is the day after tomorrow), but it also says "Purim is celebrated on the Adar 14" (i.e. tomorrow). The infobox says "2017 date Sunset, 11 March – nightfall, 12 March", so it's a complete muddle. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this Purim is tomorrow and Shushan Purim is on Monday, however these days tend to run from sunset to sunset, so Shushan Purim does actually start at sunset tomorrow. I think the OTD is right but the article is confusing matters. Whether it's worth pulling is another matter. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howcheng - tomorrow - 1993 Bombay bombings, the blurb has "over 250 civilians and injuring over 700 others", that should be "more than 250 ... more than 700 others". But then there's the issue of the infobox says 713 injured while the lead says 717. The article then goes on to say 1,400 were injured. It's a bit of a mess to go on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly tried to fix some of these but got edit conflicted about 5 times. I think the only one left is the "heartless" reference but I'm not sure what to do about that one. Remove it from the prep set or what? HalfGig talk 19:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is ironic about an editor working within policy to correct errors in the DYK section, if you could tell me why, that might prove very helpful. Sorry you want to quit DYK, were any of my comments rude, incorrect, etc? Again it would be beneficial to me if you could answer that honestly. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the query over the reliability of that source, I would simply return it to noms with a question. There's no deadline so if it's delayed a few days while the source is clarified, no-one should mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a different type of problem. If you could find a suitable alternative source you could report it here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned Kevin Malone to noms. If someone wants to check that I did it correctly, feel free. I think this is the first time I've done that. HalfGig talk 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling Man. I apologize for being curt. That's on me. When I first saw this list I was taken aback by the wall of issues and wondered why you didn't help any. I did not then know you were blocked. Nothing you said on this page today was rude, but I have seen that from you before. I don't recall what you said but do recall some comment you made at talk:DYK that went something like "is this kindergarten or an encyclopedia" (rough paraphrase). I will continue to try to help at DYK and let's move forward constructively. Just keep in mind I'm not overly experienced at DYK yet. HalfGig talk 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. You can see from the issues I've raised today, yesterday and the day before that we still need more quality control on the things that are being promoted to the main page. That comment, while curt itself, remains basically true, if we really believe we're contributing to a global encyclopedia, we need quality, tone, neutrality etc. So often the hooks promoted at DYK lack one or more of those. Glad to hear you're sticking with it, experience at DYK will take some time but you'll be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I may as well ask here, as this seems to be the new DYK Errors page. Re Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017), do you think the FA Cup had a quarter finals round in 1914? The round-of-8 matches before the semi-finals were designated (and reported as) the Fourth Round, but then what we call the quarter finals this year are properly the Sixth Round Proper (although they will almost universally be called the Quarter Finals, including by the FA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.165 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, as long as you have eight teams, you can always have a quarter finals. It may not have been called "quarter finals" but that was technically what it was. The Guardian, the BBC etc all refer to it as the quarter finals, and per WP:COMMONNAME we're probably going to follow that approach. Thanks for your note, let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see "that the phonograph and gramophone company Edison Bell", - how would readers think that's a person? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it sounds like a man's name. Did you fix the grammar? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen fixed the grammar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - Murder of Mark Kilroy - firstly the hook should embolden "was killed" because the article is about the death, not the individual. Secondly, the corollary, that means categories like 1968 births etc, which are for bios, not articles about events, should be removed. Also, Dundurn in the refs is a dab link. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with these points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Query

I should have added "few=March 2017" to the template. I have nothing more to add to this, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there any particular reason you still refuse to ping the DYK nominators to allow them a chance to respond to your criticisms? You've now criticized one of my hooks three times (that I know of!), all without pinging me, including after a request to do so in the future. Further, you've gotten two of those criticisms blatantly incorrect, so you're sitting at a 67% false positive rate. I'll reiterate that if your true objective is improvement of what appears on the front page, pinging authors is how you'll do it. ~ Rob13Talk 17:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I just look at the hooks and the articles, not the nomination templates and all those involved. I review from the prep/set listing at WP:DYKQ. When I see issues, I ping the Cwmhiraeth if they're in Prep and Stepehn if they're in a Queue. Both have said that's just fine. I'm not sure what I got "blatantly incorrect", this isn't a contest, it's about encouraging people to speak up when there are possible problems heading to the main page despite them having had two or more people review and approve them. Once again, thanks for your note, have a great Saturday evening! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged an article of mine as an orphan while imminently about to go on the main page which was not an orphan (linked to from another article via a redirect), which would have resulted in an invalid cleanup tag appearing on an article on the main page. You also had {{Did you know nominations/Jeff Almon}} pulled on a concern that was very clearly a result of having no familiarity with the topic area, as every professional athlete speaks with prospective teams before drafted, and these conversations obviously factor into decision-making. As you know, DYK credits are present in every prep and queue, so you certainly don't need to look hard to find the correct people to ping. It just depends on whether your objective is maximizing the number of "errors" (loosely defined, apparently) you can point out or actually improving main page content. ~ Rob13Talk 21:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged an article as an orphan because orphans aren't just those with zero links, they also include those with very few links, or minor/insignificant links. I didn't "have" any article "pulled", I raised a concern over an odd and verbose and disinteresting DYK hook. Having no familiarity with the topic area doesn't seem a valid opposition to my actions as this was an article about to go to them main page where even you concede that not many people have familiarity with the topic area. My main concern was really with the poor hook, in my opinion, rather than any factual issue about conversations on planes with people sitting near other people. I don't need to look hard for anything when addressing concerns with the DYK project's continual lack of quality. It's sad to say it but all you need to do is look at this talk page to see the number of issues that have been addressed at DYK in the past three days as a result of me bringing them to the attention of admins who are concerned with the quality of that aspect of the main page. I'm not at all interested in DYK credits, nor should anyone else be prevented from making their concerns clear in fear of being berated for not observing the rules of the Wikiproject that governs such things. As an admin, it's surprising to me that you don't know that anyone with any concerns about anything inaccurate heading to the main page is entitled to raise concerns wherever and however they like. I think your last sentence sums up the biggest issue with DYK, there are so many problems being promoted to sets that normal editors can't fix. Bringing those to my own talk page is hardly an attempt to maximise errors, it's actually an attempt to contact people to who care and people who listen and people who are actually and actively prepared to make fixes. This has been a problem for a very long time, many years, and pre-dates your involvement with the encyclopedia and/or project, it's just something that needs serious work. Thanks again for your suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, I won't be continuing this discussion any further. It's clear you disagree with something I've done, or said, and there are certainly other venues available to you to extend discussion over this dispute. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Placing {{Orphan}} on an article with links is unambigously incorrect. The template states "no other articles link to it". I know this has been said before, but I'll say it again; you would find many more admins willing to work on main page content if a select few didn't chase them off every time they tried. There's a reason I never clerked DYK as an admin. ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Response to above

This is not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per EEng's post here where he suggest I'm treating another editor as an "insect", they might not be aware of my pledge to refuse to continue arguments beyond one disagreement. I also note on that talkpage that I'm being accused of pointed editing because I "wait intentionally so that he can complain about DYK". I'd like to refute that as I have already explained, I only review hooks and their associated articles that make it to preps/queues, and that's something I've said I've done and only done for about two years. In the same post "I don't think the toxic environment is likely to change until TRM is topic banned, honestly, which is probably not all that far off." comes from an admin, BU_Rob13, which is a little troubling given that this entire case is subject to several discussions, including those with Arbcom. I'm not certain this is a threat, but there's absolutely nothing at all which will currently see me being topic banned. Quite the opposite in fact. As for another WP:NPA, we have EEng stating that my "activities are POINTY on steroids". I'd like El C, Coffee and The Wordsmith to have a look into that please, because just because I'm blocked and can't defend myself, there's no reason to allow personal attacks at other venues to go unaddressed. I'd also like this to be included in the ongoing AE, as a examples of the kind of editing that goes on when people try to keep the main page free of errors. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at it. If you're questioning a DYK hook at a place where the nominator isn't likely to look, then you should probably ping the nominator. That said, I don't see a threat against you. It does look to be an insulting and belittling comment, but that's not actionable against anybody but you. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already been told by a few sympathetic editors that they're happy for me to ping them for DYK issues currently heading to the main page, it's working fine. In fact, see the response from HalfGig for an example of it not working at all and the backlash when I don't request the "go to guys" to help out. But I don't appreciate being told discovering that people are saying my edits are "on steroids". That's all, I guess all bets are off and these users can say whatever they like about me. Thanks for the consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"On steroids" is slang for "to an extreme degree". It does not appear to be an insult with that knowledge. I've not threatened you at all, and certainly have not said anything related to this in my role as an admin, as I am involved. ~ Rob13Talk 03:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well where I'm from, "on steroids" is "on steroids". Thank you, and goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12 March

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with the italics and have left a message on the nominator's talk page asking him to add a reference for the awards section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, it's zipped off to the queue! However the awards for Hans Larwin are now referenced. Prep 5 has gone too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, I'll ping Stephen who might be able to help here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Stephen 22:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen My thanks, ad infinitum, but one more time this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Cwmhiraeth - prep 5 - "who he happened to be seated near on a flight" I see this made it back, the grammar needs correction - "near to whom he happened to be seated on a flight". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks, I'll ping Stephen who might be able to help here too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was originally correct as I wrote it, using "whom" (but not "near to", which is unnecessarily wordy). It was changed when moved to the prep by Cwmhiraeth. "Who" refers to the subject of a sentence, whereas "whom" refers to the object, in case you were not aware. I won't touch my own hook, but this copyedit should be reverted by an admin. ~ Rob13Talk 22:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. I won't be pursuing it any further, and I will endeavour to recognise hooks that you have submitted and avoid them, regardless of their condition, as I don't wish to engage with you in this continually confrontational and overtly passive-aggressive manner. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. I was commenting agreeing that the current instance of the hook is grammatically incorrect, explaining to the editor who introduced the error why it was an error, and encouraging an admin to fix it. How any of that is passive aggressive is beyond me. ~ Rob13Talk 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grade II* listed buildings

Dudley Miles or anyone else who may care to help, I've uploaded three images of Grade II* listed buildings that could be added to the Grade II* listed buildings in Uttlesford page. They're not brilliant by any means, but better than a blank image.

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any reason you did not upload them to Commons? That is where I always look for images to illustrate articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, I did upload them to Commons. I wouldn't be able to upload them to Wikipedia, given that I'm blocked! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I forgot that when you click on photos it says Wikipedia and you have to click 'View on Commons'. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thanks for making the most of the photos. They're average, at best, and I'll do my best to improve on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance saloon

Now that's where I am. I know that. I also know that my responses over the last week since being blocked for a month for a series of comments have gained a spectrum of responses. That notwithstanding, I admitted that I didn't suffer fools gladly, that my style of editing wasn't palatable to all, that I'm sure things I said could be interpreted as insulting. I also said that I expected to be banned from the project should I infringe the existing Arbcom sanctions, nothing's changed there. So, I'll give this one more go. I understand/acknowledge/realise that some things I do/say/imply are considered insulting/upsetting/bullying/belittling to some people. I am a normal person and I do not want to deliberately upset anyone. I do ask for a fair and balanced view of some of my own experiences but I completely understand that none of those should in any way, shape or form modify my behaviour with others. I don't know what else to say, other than I suppose that if this final note isn't enough, I'll just wait out the month-long block, and then get fully back into ensuring our readers have the best experience of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM I just wanted to say that I appreciate your words. I hope that others do as well. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement appeal closed

The appeal[2] of your sanction has been closed with the following result: Since both mine and TRM's proposal, a number of those who wished to keep the block at one month have since shifted to accepting the proposals and reducing the block to one week. Nearly all of the other opposes indicated that they would support a reduction if TRM made a statement accepting responsibility for his actions and indicating that he understood that others perceived his statements differently than he does, which he has now done [3]. Therefore, there is now a clear and substantial consensus. The validity of Sandstein's block is upheld. The length of the block is commuted to one week. The Rambling Man has voluntarily pledged both to limit his interaction during a disagreement, and to refrain from discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors.


Regards,

The WordsmithTalk to me 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Perhaps now there's a shot at getting The Boat Races 2017 ready in time!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy editing. El_C 19:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you too El_C. It seems that most of the things we discussed were completely overlooked, sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coming into this late. Wanted to make three comments/observations: 1) A lot of the "evidence" presented in the recent AE thread isn't actually evidentiary of a problem, though some of it clearly was. Too much of it was confusion of "TRM was critical of anyone at all" commingled with "TRM was unnecessarily hostile or assumption-making". 2) Relatedly, while there's a difference, obviously, between taking a sharp tone with people, and engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS, AE admins (and ArbCom, and often ANI) seem very unwilling to draw that distinction. 3) As someone who used to get in a lot of trouble for similar things, but hasn't been lately (i.e. for several years now), I can attest that "refrain from discussing the suspected motives or competence of other editors" really does have a lot to do with it. Any time you say something that implies mind-reading, you're making a mistake. Compare these two statements: "You're just either shilling for the company this article is about, or trolling on purpose" versus "It's hard for me to distinguish this editor's posts from promotional material, and their insistence on re-inserting that stuff after objections is verging on disruptive in my view". One can make the same points while making it clear one is discussing one's own perceptions, and addressing the editorial community with them, rather than accusing someone to their face of something one cannot actually prove. It takes a lot of practice to make this transition, but it seems to work. We do need to be able to raise concerns about the disruptive effects of some editors' behavior, without name-calling or fight-picking that's overly personalized and based on subjective "assume the worst must necessarily be true" leaps. My personal rule of thumb has become "does what you're about to post make any assertion that is an assumption about motivation, intelligence, background, belief, or perception? If so, rewrite to avoid going there." Various editors (including some admins) are notorious for being cantankerous but avoid being keelhauled, and it appears to me that it's because they do something similar. They may be sharp-tongued, but they don't act like they can peer into people's minds and understand their secret agendas. All that said, it won't address the "TRM too often tells other editors they're useless" perception.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being overly sensitive...

...Scheduling a grisly DYK on the anniversary of the subject's death is completely tasteless right? His parents were alive as of 2009 so I am not exaggerating in that he likely has close living relatives who probably do not want to be reminded his corpse was violated and his brain boiled. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not being overly sensitive. I have to admit that I missed the "anniversary" nature of this hook, doubly distasteful, but these things do tend to slip through the triple-gate of DYK. Sorry, but I am not disposed to speak of this any longer since I've already received a moderately hostile email from one those involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok. I bring enough hostility for everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're being overly sensitive either. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not over-sensitive! Can't believe we did that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well since I am obviously not imagining this being problematic, I will open a discussion at DYK:Talk then as the process is clearly broken in that this situation can go through without anyone actually stopping for a moment to ask 'is this a good idea?'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am ashamed I missed seeing that and speaking against it, - it was heartless. I am related to three hooks in that set, sorry that I stared at those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please provide a link to the article you're discussing here? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kilroy - the article in itself is not the problem. The problem was the grisly hook for DYK being scheduled on the anniversary of his death. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, see here: [4] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable thanks for clue to Only in death and the pretty-much-always-wise Fram --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walker

I don't really get photo licensing. Is there a way that a version of this ([5]) could be usable onwiki? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Walker's still alive so the front cover of a programme (which even if it didn't say "c all rights reserved" on that Flickr page) would come under fair use, and we couldn't justify it. We need to be more creative, e.g. find someone who has a photo of the man himself! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if we ask him, he'll send us a selfie. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HoF

Referencing this is a bugger. Best I've been able to do is [6] (up to 2007) + [7] (2012). Weak, I know. The Canaries website did have some content at one point, which I rather suspected was based on Wikipedia (!) - now canned. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, but nice. See [8] contents page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine barring the fact there's nothing from 2012 to today, sure no more inductees? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As sure as I can be. I do tend to look out for news from Carra Rud. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Started putting in some more references. How the heck do we ref that there are 15 managers in the HoF. I'm skating on OR. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Had a moment of genius! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that Phelan didn't get inducted to the HoF for his stunning four days and zero games in charge, it might be worth adding some sort of note to clarify those managers who were inducted for their time at the club as a player, rather than manager. (If such a reference is available...) Harrias talk 18:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think such a source exists - it'd have to be OR. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Haasan filmography

I hate to be too formal these days, so i'll keep it straight. Hope you would throw some comments here. Pavanjandhyala 10:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll get to it at some point! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, please do so. :) Pavanjandhyala 13:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddling

After fiddling a bit with the article, I found a great image, made my day! --Groupie Arendt (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick look: the article of the violinist, where the hook was changed from one arbitrary music to another, mentioning a number of instruments and "force" instead of "Angel", was hit 829 times, but a German hymn mentioning "pious resignation" made it to the stats. You never know. Another great performer whose praises I sang - the hook made only moderately less attractive by replacing "complex characters" by "such characters" - faired better than the violinist (with 2,364), and now I hope for hope of women, celebrating a rare collaboration of artists 100 years ago ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image slot

Any particular reason why you changed the image hook in Prep 2? The present image does not conform with DYK rules so I intend to reverse your action unless you persuade me otherwise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have reversed your change now. The lynchets in the image you used were not at Blewburton Hill, the article in question, and the image was not included in that article, a requirement for DYK. I did not think the image of lynchets submitted with the nomination was suitable for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well your change has certainly not improved things, restoring a generic image of a generic basketball player in favour of an interesting image (which could easily be included in the Blewburton Hill article as an "example" of lynchets) seems very strange to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "generic" in this context, my image choice has the subject of the article in fluid action, but I do know that your substitute image hook was a bad choice, the subject of the article being Blewburton Hill. Your changes also put two US biography hooks next to each other which is undesirable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you do know what I mean, we have a hook about something that no one will have heard of and is mysterious and there's an image that could be used, but instead we have a dull image of a generic basketball player which adds nothing to the set at all. Anyway, it's pointless arguing over it, sometimes the rules are applied, sometimes they're not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some people know; I asked my husband if he knew what a lynchet was and he replied "a medieval field system, a strip lynchet". On another matter, I just saw the ERRORS page from yesterday and discussion of the hook for the onion thrips. I agree that the word "tiny" was unnecessary but prep sets are moving to the queue too rapidly for improvements to be made in a more suitable venue than ERRORS. I have built five sets in the last three days and I am about to do one more, but after that I am going to ask for help at the discussion page. The whole idea of the prep area is for problems to be sorted out before hooks get to the queue and main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

You hit the nail on the head when you said: "we have hard hearts, and have become battle-hardened against bombings in Syria, Pakistan, Turkey etc, shootings in America, etc." That's an upsetting fact. --Mhhossein talk 14:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N'Iron folks, in case you had any doubt...

Wikipedia says NO!

To my many friends over there, we've now had it confirmed, that Northern Ireland isn't even a country. SO THERE! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it wasn't even represented at the Olympics only Great Britain! Amazingly that there is now real discussion of a united Ireland, a "wonder" of BRexit that I had not given a thought too! Edmund Patrick – confer 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly an irony in unionist politicians now arguing against roadblocks to the south ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N.Ireland has a national football team which has competed in the World Cup. Therefore its a country. Case closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2017 Westminster attack

On 22 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 Westminster attack, 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) 16:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to reply to your last comments at In the news before it was archived, but you do make some good points. I'll get back to writing articles now instead of taking pot shots at ITN blurbs :) Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Colin Dexter

On 22 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Colin Dexter, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That....

Should it be worrying that I saw this edit summary and immediately thought of this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, go on..... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Abel Prize

On 24 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Abel 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. Stephen 03:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS

Closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Your unfriendly removal of this ongoing discussion is not acceptable. We have WP:TALK, which of course also applies to Talk:Main page. Or, said this way: that section was an ongoing discussion about improving Wikipedia (esp. the TFA and its Main page blurb). Your action did not help that, and there was no need for it. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep The edit I made was perfectly acceptable; moreover it was repeated twice after you edit-warred to replace it. Your misunderstanding of common English is not a cause for ongoing discussion at ERRORS where it was clearly expressed to you that it was not actually an error in any way. Your edit-warring was disappointing. Please don't do that again, your actions are entirely unacceptable and repeating them will lead to your account being blocked. Your actions are against policy, and there is no need for them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are actually proving my point, and disqualifying yourself at the same time. Whether or not my command of English is good enough should be on that talkpage, all to improve Wikipedia. And, of course, don't call "being blocked" when you yourself violate WP:TALK. -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful, you're now on the brink of 3RR in two different venues. The sooner you learn how to communicate and follow guidelines, the better. In the meantime, please stop tweaking my talkpage against my own wishes. You have absolutely no right to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NCFC managers

So many references --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly properly formatted as well! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'll take maybe 0.3% of the credit for that. The rest is down to that weirdo TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So... where are we with it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've now plugged all the "cn"s. Someone ought to check for dashes, first use wikilinking, source formatting etc and then onto third party c-e? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bash through it. In the meantime, what's the provenance of ref 7? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a peek. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha ha ha ha! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I'd say we should be bold and post it. FLCs are taking around two months to to complete so there's no harm in putting it out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List it, bud --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dweller. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never had a manager from outside the UK?! Interesting. Just like us. But I think we've had about 16 managers in total, compared to your nearly 40...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your board is being incredibly patient with McCarthy. And don't forget, we've been around for about 30 years longer than your lot. Not that we did very much in that first 30 years. Took us about 60 to even start getting going, really. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A club tradition, patient boardrooms. Bobby Robson had a miserable start to his career at Ipswich, but that turned out alright, didn't it? After he'd won the UEFA Cup, the board offered him a ten-year contract, should he not wish to take the England job. He did and rest is history. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robson was terrific. Let's go to the other end of the spectrum: at the time, I thought your lot were far too patient with Keane, who was just terrible. Thankfully, they gave him plenty of time to waste money and upset people. Who was that useless lump of a striker he signed? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tamás Priskin? Smashing them in for ŠK Slovan Bratislava these days... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I saw him play a few times for Watford. He was awful. Mind you, he cost you less than I [mis]remembered. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was still a lot "back in the day". Not quite Tyrone Mings or Aaron Cresswell prices, but certainly not Mings/Cresswell quality... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praise ...

Just wanted to praise you for how well you handled the WP:ERRORS complaint above. I know it's not easy to take the high road, but it was very nice to see. Good job! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth, it's really nice to get some positive feedback after all this time! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the other editor a friendly note to help explain. ERRORS is not a typical talk page and it's understandable that people get a bit baffled that it works differently than usual. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ref desk

Closed. Things are going just fine thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you continue your confrontational approach, you are likely to get blocked again, and when that happens, I won't defend you again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I provided a reference to refute Medeis' erroneous claim. An actual reference. It's far from confrontational and especially important to correct individuals who make factual errors when giving medical advice at the reference desks. I thought that was obvious. Of course, whether you would wish to defend me or otherwise, should the opportunity arise, is entirely down to you. Some people don't like facing the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you were confrontational. I told you the right way to issue that correction without being confrontational. If you want to get blocked again (and again), you need to understand the difference between the right way and the wrong way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you don't see the value in stating that an assertion is completely inaccurate and then back it up with reliable sources (unlike all the preceding comments) then you misunderstand the purpose of a reference desk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lose the confrontational tone and things will go much better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And furthermore, that quaint fellow Ritchie333 gets all excited when he name-drops me in these articles with a spritely edit summary....

You know a thing or two about FLCs, right? I had a go at one once and it died due to IPs thinking adding unsourced BLP violations without an edit summary is okay. (Long story) Anyway, I've spun out List of London Monopoly places and wonder if that is a suitable candidate; it's not ready yet, but I have got more sources to expand it further. I assume absolutely everything needs an inline citation, right? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a BEAUTIFUL thing. I love Monopoly, I'm all in. Will take a look presently. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, have I shown you User:Ritchie333/Monopoly before? 23 of the 26 property squares are GAs, the list article is needed for a good topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I'm all in. Twice. I just need the time to get to it. Let me know what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, what's left is - the list article needs improving to FLC (haven't decided what to put in it; most of what's there is a straight pull from the infoboxes), Mayfair needs finishing off to GA (I've got about 500 pages of the Survey of London and Old and New London to wade through and pull out whatever might be important, if anything, then copyedit, then it's done), and two stations need GA reviewing (a number of the WP:UKRAIL regulars have done quite a bit of work already so there shouldn't be too much). By comparison, when I started in 2015, Vine Street was a stub, Pentonville Road had actually been AfDed (it was a redirect) and a couple of the others were tenuous; now they're all GAs. It's been good fun though, researching the history. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I'm about to retire for ce soir but I'm all over this tomorrow as soon as the body allows. As always, your faithful servant, dat Ramblin' biatch. (aka. The Rambling Man (talk))
(talk page stalker) This is amazing. (Also, I swear I only find anything out about this whole site from this talk page these days...) Harrias talk 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you haven't seen Wikiopoly either? ANI as the cheapest square is brilliant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go-to DYK man

Taking a break from monopoly- if an article is crap and is taken to AfD where it festers for three weeks but is eventually kept, and has been substantially improved in the meantime so it would in other circumstances qualify for a DYK- *draws breath*- can it be nominated? I.e., can the five-day clock start ticking from when it 'clears' AfD, rather than when it was expanded? Any particular procedure or 'special rule', perhaps? Thanks very much for your help! Cheers, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No, the clock starts when the article gets created or when you want to start the expansion clock from - Kelly's of Cornwall was created, went to AfD, I threw my toys out of the pram, AfD was withdrawn a few days later after I improved the article lots, then it went to DYK within the 7 day timeframe. A related question is if an article is crap, lots of people !vote keep at AfD, but nobody improves it, has it been a colossal waste of everyone's time? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! Ta though for that; WP:HEY applied here too, but it got relisted twice after that event- so of course, the blooming seven days was up somewhere between the point it was improved and the point the AfD was closed. That second question though- surely if the article is crap, people wouldn't vote keep? But in that situation, I don't suppose it's really been a waste of time- I mean, it will just sit there six~twelve months, and come the next AfD nomination, the case for deletion will be strengtheed by the fact that there was an opportunity to improve it that was not taken. Because it could not be take, perhaps. Hence the crap article remained crap-? Thanks again Ritchie333 — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Unnecessary sniping

This is not productive, nor is the original complaint in any way justified. Another day, another one of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you please refrain from snarky sniping at other editors, as here? It's entirely unnecessary and will only serve to alienate uninvolved people. Prioryman (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly ask that editor to stop lying about my edits please? If you'd read the whole discussion, you'd see on more than one occasion this user has lied about my edits. Hopefully you'll be adding a warning of similar nature to their talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prioryman please ask the other user to refrain from lying, and please demonstrate any other "snarky sniping" you may think I've done. It's very important. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors can judge for themselves, quite frankly. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prioryman no, that's fundamentally unfair. If you think I've committed some heinous sniping, then I need to know about it. If you haven't looked into the lies that 7&6 has issued against me, or the facts he has refused to even comment on, then you need to work harder before issuing me with such a trite warning. Please, either complete the job or don't start it again just to leave it half-finished. Your complaint is groundless if you actually look into the facts of the matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hi

Wikipedia's gone to hell bud. Got out before it got bad. Best of luck. Seattle (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&oldid=773224048"