User talk:The Rambling Man

ITN recognition for 2016 Ryder Cup

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

ITN recognition for Andrzej Wajda

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

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

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

ITN recognition for Alistair Urquhart

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

ITN recognition for Dario Fo

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

TFA

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITN recognition for Pete Burns

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

Congratulations

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

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

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

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

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

ITN recognition for Sakharov Prize

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

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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

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

WikiProject Boxing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not my intention to pop back up after a month with this—I simply forgot to follow it up. But if you are able to advise in any way, it would be appreciated. My good-faith 'mission' of imposing MOS:BOXING has now taken place across many hundreds of articles, without much backlash or even feedback (at least since the last RfCs about a year ago), but I really want to be prepared on how to handle any future situation with editors who take exception to the project. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mac Dreamstate and sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I've been somewhat distracted by misguided Arbcom enforcements, rogue admins and blocks! Still, I will endeavour to get to you on this, assuming I still have an active account from which to do so! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede-too-short tagging

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

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

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

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

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

The mop

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

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

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

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

After having returned from a couple-of-years long wikibreak, I chanced across your name. I was involved in the discussions about the RD back in the day, and so I was disappointed to see that your adminiship was ended. I had always thought then that your supposedly uncivil comments were directed at editors who, by and large, needed to be confronted over their non-contributory actions. I am gratified to find that you are still active as an editor. 248 to go. Best of luck.;) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a shame that Arbcom and their minions work on the basis of lies and rigged outcomes, otherwise everything would be just fine. I'm keeping on keeping on, and making sure that lot and the rogue admins they don't want to go after are held to account for their shambolic and unequal actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, just 247. I first voted for you nearly ten years ago, did so again a year later with your RfB, would so again now. :) Acalamari 22:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet participated in an RFA discussion but I would support you if it came up- though I also wouldn't blame you for not being interested. I thought the result you experienced was unfortunate. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Category:Association footballers not categorized by position

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

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

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

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

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

Arb questions

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

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

FLC

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

Asking for help at FLC

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

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

ITN recognition for LaMia Airlines Flight 2933

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

ITN recognition for Margaret Rhodes

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

ITN recognition for David Hamilton (photographer)

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

Incorrect Interaction Ban Reminder

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't listen to the nasty man TRM, especially one who hasn't added any article content to the encyclopedia for nearly six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm now fully accustomed to Arbcom incompetence, but what really irks me here is that Mike V is actually accusing me of being a liar. That's disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Did Mike V just fucking forget AGF? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  Mike V made two mistakes. He made a mistake by claiming I was a liar, and he made a mistake by failing to apologise for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  See, Mike V won't see a sudden intrusion into FL as an infringement of IBAN will he? No of course not, because he's too busy being happy calling me a liar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't know why you're all so jeffin' surprised by Mike V's behaviour. As an administrator, he's as incompetent and corrupt as the day is long. Cassianto^Talk 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a dereliction of duty for Mike V not to respond to TRM's answer and diffs; there should either be a counter argument forthcoming that addresses them in a satisfactory way, or, if that isn't possible, an apology for making a mistake. Although sometimes the heat of the moment makes silence seem like the easier option, ultimately it would be disappointing if Mike V were to prove incapable of any kind of response. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V and the rest of Arbcom shirking responsibility? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Mike V is not alone, unfortunately; someone called MSGJ has been making a bit of a fool of themselves on John's talk page by being unable to give examples of John's "incivility" after they'd just accused him of it. Very embarrassing, but not unsurprising really. Cassianto^Talk 09:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Banedon's canvassing was mentioned in the discussion of the arbcom finding of fact that MikeV is citing above. There's ambiguity here, and in the context of accepting or declining cases, it seems more likely that canvassing that isn't discussed in the findings of fact would (i.e. Banedon's) would be the more pertinent issue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2016 Oakland warehouse fire

On 4 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Oakland warehouse fire, 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) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ref improve Italian referendum

Hi, I noticed you said that the page on the Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 needs more references. Would you help us improve the page by marking what exactly you think needs references? Thank you. Loudo89 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Well you can easily find whole unreferenced paragraphs (e.g. look at the Political background section). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll. If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA). If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December. We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, 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, 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) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi Rambling Man. Thank you for the FLC assessment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Premier League seasons and results/archive1. I've replied to you there, but wanted to put in a note that if you think that the list needs considerable work before again trying for FLC, I'll withdraw the nomination. Thanks (and I adore the work you do here). Lourdes 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, very kind. I've replied at the nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for PIA Flight 661

On 7 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article PIA Flight 661, 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) 15:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for English football sexual abuse scandal

On 7 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article English football sexual abuse scandal, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Uzbek presidential election at ITN

Could you possibly have another look at Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016 -- I think it just about meets the minimum now but it's far from my area of interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This talk page message caught my eye, so I checked the nomination, saw TRM was happy, checked the article and posted it as I too was happy. Teamwork. Bencherlite^Talk 23:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The hits keep on rolling! It's marvellous when people actually stop acting like arrogant asshats and start looking at article quality and integrity. EA (above) and a few others have demonstrated that ITN can and does work, as long as you're not an American admin trying to give a free pass to an American story. The effort expended some the recent non-US stories is truly commendable and we should all strive to keep standards high and equal, even for those US stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for December 2016 Istanbul bombings

On 11 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article December 2016 Istanbul bombings, 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) 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for A. A. Gill

On 11 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article A. A. Gill, 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) 04:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Uyo church collapse

On 11 December 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Uyo church collapse, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 16:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

FA

Hi! I'm thinking about getting Peter Prevc to a FA. When I nominated it for a GA, it passed smoothly. Since you helped me a lot with your comments on the Slovenia at the Olympics FL, could I ask you for a quick check of the article in question, so that I know how much work should I invest before the nomination? Thank you in advance! --Tone 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

For sure. I'm back at work tomorrow but I will hopefully get time to have a once-over. It needs some smoothing out with regard to prose and less of those sections, but it's en-route... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing FLCs

Hey thanks for closing the Clarkson FLC. I reverted some of your edits, such as your pulling it off of the FLC page- the closing instructions have changed since you were last a delegate. Now, you just put {{FLCClosed|not promoted}} on the nomination and sign the edit, and the bot does everything else besides edits to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Closure log. (And WP:FL, if it was a promotion). Doing the steps that the bot does ends up confusing things. See WP:FLCI for more details. --PresN 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The "closing instructions" linked to in the header box at FLC need to be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought this page could do with brightening up

	Here's something sparkly.
	Cheers Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

How about something more fun?

I see you had quite the "interesting" day. As a break from all the drama, would you mind doing me a favor at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parrots/archive1? The nominator asked for an example of alt text, in response to a comment of yours, and I fear that they are confused at this point. Maybe you could give them an example or two, or indicate how good the most recently proposed alt text is. Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Does "List of parrots" include people reciting reasons that Mike V shouldn't be desysopped? EEng 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Giants 2008 yes, a busy day and a highly embarrassing one all round for Wikipedia. But hey ho. As for alt text, I'm not an expert in any way on this. If I was pushed for a resource to go to for help here, I'd say RexxS would be ideal. However, PresN stated that we're no longer pushing for alt text to be added to images at FLC, although that, in my opinion, contravenes WP:ACCESS and MOS:IMAGES. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Giants2008 gah, let's try that ping again... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think FAC also stopped enforcing the alt text portion of the accessibility guidelines. When people starting asking for alt text there, a lot of reviewing time was spent on explaining the requirements to nominators, and it was discussed heavily on FAC talk for a while. It ended up putting off participants more than anything, from what I remember. It's still asked for sometimes, but it's seen as more of a nice feature than a requirement; there isn't systematic checking of every article, the way there is for sources/images. With that in mind, I'll ask you to revisit the other comments, and wish you a good day. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I think there's a way of displaying all the alt text for every image in an article, but the point is moot if we no longer enforce it. If that's really the case, and at FAC too, we should address it at WP:ACCESS to tone down any perceived requirement and make it a nice-to-have. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've provided the counter-argument in favour of having alt text (where useful) and given some examples. On other occasions, I've pointed out to the FAC folks that failing to meet world-wide accessibility standards (let alone Wikipedia's own MOS) is hardly commensurate with articles that "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So, RexxS, sorry to beg more of your time, but would you consider alt text to be of use in the mass of images used in the List of parrots? Would you be able to give a good example of alt text from any one of those particular "parrot shots"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course, TRM. It's probably hard to spot among the threads on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parrots/archive1, but here's what I wrote about the parrot shots:

• It is true that in many cases the description of the image will be mundane, but you need to ask yourself what the purpose of including each image is? If it's purely decorative, then I'd say the images should not be there. If it's to show viewers what that species of parrot looks like, then I suggest that you ought to be also providing as much of that information to blind visitors as you can. For example, a screen reader coming to the image File:Psittacus erithacus -perching on tray-8d.jpg is likely to hear something like "Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee link File colon Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee". That's really not very helpful. I suggest that setting the alt text to something like "A grey parrot with black beak, white face and a short red tail" would prove far more useful to someone who can't see the image (for whatever reason).

To expand on that, a screen reader could hear instead "A grey parrot with black beak, white face and a short red tail link File colon Psittacus erithacus dash perching on tray dash eight dee dot jay pee gee" Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If it matters, when I review images in FAC I always recommend/request ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it does matter, and thank you Jo-Jo. I'm not upset when I see a FA promoted without alt text, but I do feel disappointment that an opportunity has been missed to set an example. It's understandable that FAC found alt text too unstable a concept to implement properly some years ago. But the guidance has settled down over time and I think is quite usable now. We shouldn't be seeing any of the extreme examples like "black and white photograph of a man with a black jawbone beard, sunken eyes and a stovepipe hat, wearing a dark jacket over a white shirt". Those kind of descriptions really don't offer much encyclopedic information to a user of a screen reader. On the other hand, it should be obvious that it's informative to tell someone whose eyesight has faded, but still understands colour, that an African grey parrot has a black beak and a short red tail. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's my feeling too. The alt text is a great idea for such situations as you've described. I'm going to keep suggesting we use it at FLC, or until such a time it's entirely removed from WP:ACCESS. Thanks again RexxS for your insightful input here, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope no one minds if I pop in here, but I noticed this discussion and it raises an issue I had wondered about. As I understand it, alt text is meant to be a description of an image for (say) a visually impaired reader. I am unsure what I could put that would be helpful in the chemistry content which I write. For example, I am presently working on pyrithione and think I could give a description that is a re-hash of the text, but the point of the images is to convey structures. I will be adding a link to File:Zink-Pyrithion.svg which is the form in which pyrithione occurs in anti-dandruff shampoo, but if I put "structure of zinc pyrithione", that doesn't convey much. If I say "two anions of the conjugate base of pyrithione chelating to a tetrahedral zinc(II) centre", which is accurate, it requires a reasonable understanding of chemistry. Should I be starting with an alt on the infobox image something like "Equilibrium between the two structural forms of pyrithione. The one on the right shows the thiol form, a pyridine-N-oxide with a mercapto functional group bound to carbon number 2. The one on the left is the thione tautomer with a hydroxyl functional group bound to the nitrogen atom and a double bond from carbon number 2 to a sulphur atom." Advice or thoughts welcome. I have worked on the aromatisation article which still needs one major section added (on aromatisation in biochemical contexts) and then I plan to put it to GA, and I've wondered about FA, but the ALT text issue struck me as daunting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That's a misunderstanding of the purpose of alt-text, which is supposed to be a very brief "what you're missing", not a replacement for the actual image (the usual example is alt=Dog leaps for a stick). The appropriate alt text for File:Zink-Pyrithion.svg is alt=Structure of zinc pyrithione, unless the image will already have a caption along those lines in which case the alt text should be alt=refer to caption. As a general rule, if the alt text is more than ten words, it's too long. ‑ Iridescent 21:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Script edit at aluminium triacetate

Hi TRM, regarding this edit you recently made, script assisted, to the aluminium triacetate article: I appreciate the tweaks made re dashes and arrows, etc, but note that right near the end of the article one of the dashes in a doi for a journal article has been changed so that it no longer targets this which takes you to the journal article but instead targets this error message. I have repaired the link, but wanted to mention it to you so you can keep an eye out for when the script alters doi fields in templates. If this script is breaking other doi links, I think it will need tweaking (no idea if it is your script or how to do that, by the way). The script also changed the url for the final reference in the article, changing "dq=isbn:0854046275" to "dq=ISBN0854046275" in a google books link. I have no idea if this change matters – in any case, that url is poorly targeted so I have fixed it to actually show the page referenced. Thanks for checking on the upcoming DYK articles, and I thought you would want to know when something has gone awry. Regards, EdChem (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks for letting me know. The script seems to take on a life of its own sometimes, occasionally dashing ISBNs for instance. I normally catch it before committing, but not in this case. Sorry and cheers for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/2003 Cricket World Cup Final/archive2

Not sure if this is the right to time to ask, but it would be really nice if you could offer a review. Sarastro1 and Harrias seem to be inactive. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just wanted to congratulate you on your recent successful outcome re:Mike V. A fantastic result that, well played sir! In da trees Allen (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No result at all. Mike V has done a runner to avoid scrutiny and retains his entire toolset, including Checkuser and Oversight while failing to admit to his failings as an admin and failing to apologise for accusations of lying. I'm sure your time as a sockpuppeteer is limited, as I'm sure the old Checkuser will be deployed just in case he thinks it's me doing all this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not cliaming to be you at all sir. I'm just appreciative of what you have achieved. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to return to my work at Mr V's page, where I am attempting to force a strict protection protocol so noone else can converse with the bugger. Lol. And, no, I think you'll find my time as a sockpuppeteer is not so limited. Let's see what the CU's come up with shall we? In da trees Allen (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello The Rambling Man: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Apparent POV in ITN ongoing

Aleppo Offensive is currently part of our ITN front page under "ongoing". But a quick look at its 'International Reactions' section suggests that it is currently highly POV, giving reactions that support Russia, but not a single explicit condemnation of Russia (though the cited UN reaction arguably implicitly condemns her). As such it may no longer meet our quality standards for the front page (or anywhere else). But as I'm not sufficiently interested to do anything serious about it (even if I knew what one is supposed to do, which I don't, and I am not sufficiently interested to try to find out), I thought I'd briefly bring it to your attention, given your well-known long experience of ITN, and let you decide whether or not you think somebody should try to do something about it. Alternatively you may know who else is better or best suited for taking the matter further if you prefer not to get involved yourself. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tlhslobus, sadly once an article is posted into ITN, there's no much oversight provided by project members to ensure that it continues to meet our standards. The only thing that could be done would be to ensure the article is tagged sufficiently and then nominate it for removal, or alternatively add some opposing points of view to the article to attempt to achieve some balance. I'm afraid the Ongoing section of ITN is something of a joke, no-one seems sure what it should be used for... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello The Rambling Man,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"conventional"

You obviously haven't read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Visual_arts#Works_of_art, and don't know how many Adorations David painted (lots, including these). Johnbod (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow. The piece is called Adoration of the Kings. David painted one of those, or at least Wikipedia only has an article about one of those. What's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you still haven't read it: "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso). It is generally better to disambiguate by the artist's name than by medium, as there may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists. If the artist painted several works with the same, or very similar, titles, add the location of the work if it is in a public collection. For example, Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington), as van Eyck painted several Annunciations. A title such as Madonna and Child (Raphael) is of little use (see Category:Raphael Madonnas),..." Johnbod (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I created a dab page for the other Adoration articles whose editors clearly disagree with what you've linked to. How many Adoration pieces did David paint? How many articles on Wikipedia relate to David's various Adoration pieces? Do you really believe that further disambiguation is required if only one such article exists? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How unbelievably slapdash! Do it properly please! It does not matter how many the other artists painted, but how many David and his workshop did - probably about a dozen surviving, several well known & in major museums. Johnbod (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I still don't follow you, but I can see this is no longer a productive discussion. By all means add more to the dab page I created. By all means move the page back to whatever convention you deem fit (of course, no-one would ever actually find it with the title it previously had, at least now there's a dab page, our readers would stand a chance). Your title was still wrong in accordance with your current interpretation of the guideline, but I have no interest in being chastised by anyone, in particular by someone who is being sanctimonious and patronising. Not bad before 9am. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless there are multiple works by the same artist *with* articles, you wouldnt further disambiguate the title. Disambiguation is for articles that exist, not subjects of articles that may/may not exist in the future. I'm not even sure it should exist as a redirect - as no one is actually going to point at, or find an article title that only exists in that format due to wikipedias arcane MOS guidelines. Its not even as if his works are titled 'Adoration'. He painted multiple Adorations, but they are 'Adoration of the X' which is what they named. The only reason you would disambiguate 'Adoration of the kings' further (than just the artist name) is if he painted multiple adoration of the kings, they were titled the same, and we had distinct articles on them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Jacques-Louis David, Oath of the Horatii (1786)

Exactly. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you think David actually created these titles? He didn't. They are assigned by museums and art historians, frequently changed, & Magi/Kings are completely interchangeable, as a little searching on any example will show you. As for cutting "Gerard", does this picture ring any bells? See WP:VAMOS again. Don't blame me if you disagree with the MOS. Now I have to find an admin to unwind your mess. Johnbod (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a valid argument that with multiple works of *similar* names further disabiguation would be required (Adoration of the Kings, Adoration of the Magi, Adoration of the Pikachu etc) but that would still actually need articles *existing* to require the disabiguation, which in this case (unlike say Raphael) isnt in evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks OID, but HE CAN'T HEAR YOU. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Although I think its great that in the spirit of Christmas instead of taking a break we can all argue about Christmas art instead! Tis the season and all that... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Tell me about it. Try to actually improve the place a little and get yelled at for being "slapdash", unlike the original author who got the title wrong, the italicisation of the title wrong and various other MOS requirements wrong. Pot, meet kettle. Joyeux Noel!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to do a part italicization, once the proper title is back. But how come you didn't do that when you moved it? Johnbod (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've fixed the title twice. Once after it was moved by me, now once you've (unnecessarily) moved it back. If you need more help with editing or understanding how to properly italicise titles, don't hesitate to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. Your ham-fisted attempts to help the reader will now leave most people seeing the article title in isolation with the impression the article is about a painting by the considerably more famous French Romantic painter. The MOS is there for a reason. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your communication skills leave a lot to be desired. Your choice of article title meant no-one would ever find it! Read above, you're own your own here. Now disappear while I set about fixing up the garbage that I've just found! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)