User talk:The Rambling Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ping[edit]

I answered your posts at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BLM Herd Management Areas/archive1 and had some follow up questions -- I fixed most of what you pointed out (I think) and would value some advice on how to proceed. I've been off-wiki a lot lately, so how is all the stuff you are dealing with above going? I do get very tired of the trolls and bullies that attack good long-term editors. We do get a little irritable at times, but one thing Jimbo said that I wholeheartedly applaud (there aren't a lot of things Jimbo said that I applaud, but this was one...) was, "I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I will get back to your FLC in due course, thanks for the nudge. As for the "stuff" above, it's nothing to me. I have only one goal and that's the continued improvement of Wikipedia. What's happening reminds me a lot of modern health and safety, that we daren't do anything ever just in case there's an infinitesimal chance someone may get a bruised ego. I look forward to the end of the forthcoming two-plus months of drama, and I won't be taking part, there's little point. Arbcom have their own agenda, regardless of the lynching masses, and the equal number who stand behind me. What I do hope is that it will put more of a spotlight on the pisspoor !voting at ITN, the terrifying ignorance at the ref desks and, well, DYK, where do you begin? If I'm a complete maniac, you can sue me. I just want our encyclopedia to be the best in history. If that means reminding a few people that they're not doing the right thing, haven't been doing the right thing for a while, or have never done the right thing, that's fine too. I'm sure someone will let me know around Christmas that they don't want me continually improving Wikipedia. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Two low life bastards, now at PR[edit]

No, not me and Gavin, but Burke and Hare, an article that will no doubt be our last for the project. Any comments, greatly received. CassiantoTalk 12:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Peer Review still actually working?! Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It is for those who want to participate; until ArbCom and the morons at ANI hound them off, that is. CassiantoTalk 22:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't blame Arbcom, it's not really their fault................................ The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review! How quaint! I'll pop by. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

2003 CWC[edit]

I'm trying to give it a shot a the FAC. Would you be interested in participating at the PR? Thanks, Vensatry (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Travelling with work for a while, which is good and bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Fellow-outcast, can I interest you in my FAC? Congrats to your boat races, - when should that appear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If I get a chance, I promise to take a look. If not, and in any case, good luck with the nom! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
playing nice
... you were recipient
no. 602 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. While I've had a little time on my hands as I'm away from home, I've found it difficult to apply it in large amounts, hence the usual quality checks of OTDs and DYKs on the main page. I'll try to get to the various reviews that folks have invited me to, although it may all go to ratshit once the canvassed masses have finished their assassination. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Before that hits, can you pop over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of BLM Herd Management Areas/archive1 and answer my questions there on your review? I fixed most of what you pinged, but I was flummoxed by a couple of things. Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No, not guaranteed. I'm in South Africa at the moment, working, and travelling quite a bit. Arbcom have already got their juices heightened, and can't wait to sanction me off here probably before I get a chance to properly re-review this. It doesn't matter, I'm sure. The FLC delegates who know me and my work well will doubtless work around it. If I do get a chance, I will, but no promises. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Chin up! Montanabw(talk) 07:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

What does this do please? I am not familiar with this. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It adjusts the size of the columns of references according to screensize, so they display better on smaller screens (e.g. phones). See em (typography) for more specific info about it. The Wikipedia standard seems to be 30em for reflists. Joseph2302 20:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this new? Why don't we just change the way the traditional Reflist looks in the first place?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, good question, we should switch the reflist default to 30em. Please be my guest in suggesting that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Where?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea. Try the Village Pump. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

You helped with some edits, so FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Secretariat (horse)/archive1. Montanabw(talk) 20:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Poke[edit]

I imagine you know this, but just to be certain, the evidence phase of the TRM case is scheduled to close today. If you've decided to add evidence after all, now's the time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. A number of people have talked to me about this. I've literally just stepped off a 12-hour flight from Johannesburg but thanks for your diligence, noted as a shining star in a biased and preloaded cesspit. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dyrham Park[edit]

Thanks for the note re Dyrham Park. I've changed it to "in 1511" as that is when it was granted however the process (never completed) took longer.— Rod talk 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Hi there! My mean is not to bother you, but I was wondering if you could find time to comment on my FAC above and even support or oppose to it. Face-smile.svg Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria"?[edit]

Your recent edit to the article for East Orange High School added a "famous" tag, which creates a message indicating that the list of individuals in the "Notable alumni" section has "no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria". Given the meanings of the words "notable" and "alumni", the inclusion criteria would appear to be self evident and well defined. I could have added an introductory clause that states "the following list includes notable individuals who attended the school" -- and you could have added it for that matter to address your own concerns -- but isn't that exactly what the section title "Notable alumni" means? What should be added to address your issue? What article has a statement that meets your standard? Alansohn (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the {{famous}} template exists for a reason, and the section to which I added it matches the template precisely. Our readers have no idea about the WP:N criteria, nor should they have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, The Rambling Man. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Yes, I can see your point. Atleast in the case of the Helene Ripa article. I have asked two users who is more used to editing DYK status articles to help. Hopefully their help can give the article some more meat on its bones. Any other suggestions or helpful tips concerning this matter? regards, BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with slim articles, just articles not written in English. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I do however have a track record with several articles that has passed DYK standard. Overall I do a great job. But everyone can absolutely fail at times. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
But you are right about the fact that I could let other users review and help improve the articles before I nominate them.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
As I've already said, you could improve the article but it's not your fault the system has allowed it a free pass to nearly the main page. That's DYK's issue but apparently there isn't an issue there, just a problem with those that point out the problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)