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 The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) at 08:39, 6 February 2008 (archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you for popping by to my talk page. If you'd like to leave a message, please do so at the bottom of this page, and don't forget to sign your post using four tildes (~~~~) so I can get back to you with a reply. Cheers! The Rambling Man


Golden Film

The FAC for Golden Film was abruptly closed. I have some questions left:

  • In the list of Golden Film recipients, it says 2001 and 2002 recipients only had to sell 75,000 tickets. If so this needs to be added here.
    • This is explained in the History section. What do you mean with this remark?
  • "While the recipients of the award have considered the receiving films to be successful, critics have said that films are not successful when they have sold only the tickets needed to receive the Golden Film ." Not clear what this sentence means.
    • Could you help me with this sentence? I can't get it right.
  • "announced the Golden Film on September 4, 2001 as an award for films from the Netherlands that had been seen by a paying audience of, at that time, 75,000 or more.[1] " - this reads rather awkwardly for me.
    • This was the definition of the award at the introduction in 2001. I replaced two commas with em dashes, does this already help?
  • "Recipients consider the Golden Film to be an award given to films that are a success." this seems pretty obvious to me, if I was given an award for a film I produced/acted in, I'd probably consider it a success too.
    • This passage is inserted, because critics say films that have only the audience needed for the Golden Film award are not yet commercially successful.

Thank you for your time. – Ilse@ 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITFC stats (again)

Hi, coupla things thought I'd mention here rather than at the FLC. First, your appearances table sorts on starts, rather than starts plus sub appearances, e.g Stockwell's 28+3 FA Cup apps sorts below Rees's 29+0. Is that what you want it to do? Also, you could change the legend to competitive professional matches only like it already says above the scorers table. Second, under Managerial records I'd assume that O'Brien was the first club manager in the professional era rather than the first ever? if so, perhaps you should say so, and maybe add the first ever, if there was such a sourceable person. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sneaky"

Is that my new nickname? NPA! --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, BK, you got it. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky here. Have a peek at this Wikipedia_talk:User_page#.22Dick.22 and tell me if I'm off-beam as usual. btw My edits to the list page now make my top 10 on my edit counter, not that I am counting. Often. Well, at least, not more often than once a day. Usually. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

Hi, are you still interesting in giving admin coaching? If not please ignore the rest of this. Just to introduce myself, I'm John, and I have contributed to Wikipedia for about 2 years, as a named user since November 2006. I largely spend my times on football, British TV and video games articles, though I find most of my edits are discussing or reverting vandalism or innappropriate edits, rather than add actual content. For a while I have been toying with the idea of trying to become an admin, largely so that I can do more work against vandalism. But I feel rather than jump straight into the process I want to get an opinion on whether I would be suitable, and see where I can improve. I think my weaknesses will probably be my low percentage of new content compared to fixing or discussing, and a lack of knowledge of some of the more obscure processes and rules. I'm very familar with most of the processes such as ARV, CSD, AfD, etc. but I'm sure there are things which admins should know about which I haven't come across that much. I looked on the list of potential coaches and noticed you as I'm sure I have edited the same articles as you at some point, and you seem to share some of the same interests as me. Would you like to be my coach? John Hayestalk 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also just released realised where I've seen you before, you've been working on the two peer reviews of Liverpool F.C. related articles, which reminds me I must list them on WP:LFC. Anyway I'll get onto those tasks later and get back to you. John Hayestalk 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the page, Jrphayes/Admin Coaching, I'll finish answering the questions later today. John Hayestalk 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old pix

You could always ask the club. Old pix would have little or no commercial value to them, esp when relatively low res. --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Stortinget 2001-2005

Hey Punkmorten, I've added some comments at the WP:FLC for the List of members of Stortinget 2001-2005 article. Hope they are of use to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do have the FLC on my watchlist, I left replies. If we could work out the page title that would be great. Punkmorten (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Milner

Do you have anything more to add to the PR? Buc (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirfield

Hi, would you consider semi-protecting this page please? I appreciate that normally you require lots of vandalism for SP. However, what we have here is someone, using a dynamic IP address so he can't be blocked, adding false information. I have adjusted it slightly from here. The problem is that the vandalism is not getting reverted promptly and remains unreverted for long enough for the media to pick up on it and cause Wikipedia embarrassment. BlueValour (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6 4 February 2008 About the Signpost
Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored 
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes" News and notes: Milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Adding citations 
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&oldid=189459337"