User talk:The Rambling Man/Archive 38

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

Contents

Note

Hey there, I know you're still on break but whenever you get the time, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nashville Sounds awards, All-Stars, and league leaders/archive1 needs a revisit. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Anime episode lists

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but episode lists in general don't cite any reliable sources for their summaries. However, you noted on an Anime FLC that you couldn't comment on the accuracy of the episode list sans a source. I'd like to discuss this with you: would citing the episodes themselves be sufficient? I assume not. In this case, many of the episode lists with summaries are simply untenable as simple articles due to the lack of reliable sourcing and inability for users to verify information.

In light of this, do you think it would be a good idea to simply cut out the summaries altogether since they cannot be sourced? Everything else can be sourced; airdates, opening songs, even a generalized summary. Perhaps episode lists should be just simple lists of episodes.

I look forward to hearing your views on this matter. While I recognize a policy change like this would require general community consensus in a contentious area (fictional plot summary policy is a hellhole of drama), I'd like to throw around some ideas with you first and hear what you think. (This is not an urgent request; enjoy your wikibreak as necessary and respond only when you feel like it.) ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My biggest complaint there wasn't necessarily related to the fact it was an anime list, but that most of the references were in a foreign language. We need to pay attention to the fact this is English Wikipedia. As for citing episode synopses, yes there's a general consensus that the they do not need to be individually referenced, and I have no feeling either way on that one. It's not a FL issue as FAs about movies most certainly follow the same consensus. I prefer summaries, although a recent list (about MASH episodes) was simply a list of episodes, but mainly because there were so many of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. I suppose then, that licensed anime that has been adapted into English would be viable, yes? The airdates would still have to have Japanese sources, but that's unavoidable. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, airdates wouldn't be too controversial, and if they were, a reasonable translation for each could be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we go through each source so that you can tell me exactly where you need superior sourcing, preferably in English? Let's take List of Toshokan Sensō episodes for instance. I will skip English sources for convenience.
  1. Refs 5-8: Sourcing the number of episodes in each DVD release and DVD release dates. If airdates are uncontroversial and can be sourced in Japanese, this information must be as well, yes?
  2. Refs 9, 10: Opening music and ending music bands. This can be cited in one of two ways (or both, depending on preference). These websites state the opening and ending songs, but are in Japanese. The episodes themselves can also serve as a source: in most series, the opening and ending songs are credited.
  3. Ref 11: This sources the word-for-word copies of the Japanese titles. The English titles are sourced by reference 3.
Your comment on the FLC referenced above, As I said before as I can verify the content of the list, I don't really think there's much point in me reviewing the episode synopses because they could be inaccurate. seems inconsistent with As for citing episode synopses, yes there's a general consensus that the they do not need to be individually referenced, and I have no feeling either way on that one. In the most recently promoted FL with episode summaries, List of Moonlighting episodes in April, the summaries are partially referenced at best: the summaries themselves are unreferenced, though there are summaries in the airdate / director references; these summaries are substantially different from the summaries on the Wikipedia page, yet you supported anyway. I must profess to being confused with your thoughts on this matter.
Looking forward to hearing from you. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume I meant "I can't verify..." the episodes? I meant that I could review the synopses for grammar, spelling, style etc, but not verify them in any way. And despite the fact I'd probably prefer references for anything that could be questioned (per WP:REF) there does seem to be a community consensus that synopses don't need to be individually referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Arg... I've been dancing around trying to avoid asking you this directly, but I guess I've run out of options. So: what, exactly, do you find needs ref improvement so that an anime list (like List of Toshokan Sensō episodes or List of Spice and Wolf episodes, which I would like to take to FLC in the near future) may be recognized as a featured list? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No need to be embarrassed! Do consider that I'm just a director, not the overall consensus. If the community are happy with your references then I won't stand in the way of promotion, nor would I oppose based purely and simply upon it either. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents football seasons

Greetings. I'm wondering if I could have your quick opinion on something. Right now, I'm working on List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents football seasons, and I am having problems with the "Conference finish" column. I am unable to find conference rankings for a number of seasons where the team was not the champion. How important is this information to an FLC? I know you can't make any guarantees about how the discussion would go. Do you think that information gap this might be overlooked? Do you think it might be feasible to rename that column "Conference championships"? Would that fly. I'd appreciate any advice you could give me.--GrapedApe (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction would be to add a N/K or N/A (i.e. not known or not available) and include a note until this can be resolved. It'll be up to the community to decide whether this makes the list complete enough to become a FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FLCs etc.

Need reviews/revisits


Need to be closed, eventually

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant, and your suggestion at my talk page about how to improve the article (the cite ordering, had not noticed that before your suggestion, thanks!). Hope you are doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What restaurants should be included?

Dear Sir or Madam, to avoid cluttering the deletion discussion, I came here to let you know there is a current discussion regarding the criteria for inclusion of restaurants at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability. I think the consequence would be whether every single restaurant mentioned in the NYTimes (or Times of London, or Philadelphia Inquirer, or Washington Post, or Pittsburgh Press... where do you draw the line?) will then warrant an article. Will every flash in the pan restaurant which has one mention in a paper of note, and a sprinkling of local reviews have an article? Will that improve the encyclopdia? Though I have my opinion, I don't mean for those questions to sound rhetorical... if the consensus is yes, they all deserve WP articles, then so be it. Njsustain (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, I think you should at least let the folks at this AFD know, in general. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Cleveland Indians managers

I have responded to your comments of the page's FLN page. Your response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--LAAFan 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

86.43.215.174, 86.44.85.89

I'm not sure if 86.43.215.174, 86.44.85.89 (same editor) can be reasoned with. The IP editor has been provided with resources to read, but I doubt any were read carefully. Editor has also been posting these types of messages on other editor's talk pages. Take a look at mine. Face-sad.svg  Davtra  (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But WP:AGF and all that... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Digimon video games

This is Tezero, the nominator of this list. I'm going to be out of town with relatives starting August 1 (two days from now), and will likely have little time for internet access. I don't know how long it traditionally takes for FLCs to be closed, but I'd appreciate it if you could close this one by that day at 00:00 or so. I'm not trying to quit while I'm ahead or anything, but I don't want anyone to make comments that I won't be able to address. Sorry to be relatively abrupt about this, but I figure better now than tomorrow. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently it doesn't haven't sufficient support to be promoted, but it's probably just a matter of time. There's no deadline. Enjoy your time away, the FLC will remain open until you return if need be. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. You may as well just keep it open, then, and I'll get back to it as soon as is possible. Tezero (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding- List of Cleveland Indians managers

I believe your concerns have now been addressed. Again, your response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --LAAFan 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 10:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1

Hello,

I believe that I addressed some of your comments. However, I have a question with one of them, could you take a look when you get the chance?

Thanks, --Yueof theNorth 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'm confident of a clean sheet tomorrow. Whether we can score with only a teenage striker, a Carlisle reject (we do love him mind), and the second most famous Will Buckley is another matter.

Life's not too bad thanks. It's been a pretty rubbish year, but every cloud has a silver lining.

As you say, it's hard to tell where the FLC is going. Obviously the decision to review is a personal one, but if you're trying to decide whether to give brief opinions, then I'm sure Struway would agree that any input on sorting would be very welcome. I was considering posting a request for more eyes at WT:FOOTY or WT:FLC, but figured that these might be considered canvassing/unfair to other FLCs respectively. Regards, --WFC-- 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess linking here probably isn't a smart thing to do then... --WFC-- 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Beats us. Although we have some of the best 16-18 year olds in the country, the depressing fact is that if our starting lineup at Norwich was sold tomorrow, the ten outfield players combined would be worth less than Chopra and Priskin. --WFC-- 01:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No sweat. Let's just hope we haven't wasted an alleged £500k. --WFC-- 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:ADVERTISING

Wowww. Its a small, personal, non-profit, non-advertising, B L O G hosted by blogspot. I would assume would would know better to assume things about something you know nothing about. Candyo32 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding links to your own blog is inherently "promotional" and thus is considered advertising. Also, he's a crat, so I generally assume he knows Wikipedia policy pretty well. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 04:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey mortgage man

Some questions at Talk:Carrow Road. Big game tonight. We've not won our opening fixture since 2002. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dong

You've got mail. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Hi The Rambling Man, I would like to invite you to a discussion on setting up good guidelines for tennis player notability. Please feel free to give comments and suggestions there. Thank you. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

List of battleships of Austria-Hungary

I've addressed all of your comments on the FLC for this list :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for your kind remarks and assistance. Please feel free to nudge me if you think I can be of help somewhere. Ben MacDui 07:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

competition

Hi there. Im looking to have a writing competition held in September and I am looking for a couple people to help me with their thoughts and ideas. I have had some input on the competition and have had several chats with people outside the wikipedia talk pages and I have decided to keep the competition limited to the following restraints:

1. Judges and competitors are separate and there has to be a finite list of them.

2. The competition should range from a few days to no more than 2 weeks, depending on the theme. Not a year long competition and not multiple stages.

3. The theme will be either creating ONE new article, expanding a stub, illustrating a large article with no pictures, editing an article in crisis or something similar to these ideas. If its successful we can have more competitions with other themes.

4. My general idea (but this needs serious development) is to have each article judged two or three times. The top ten are then announced as finalists and every judge then reviews those articles and the top three are announced.

4. Simple is good. Decide theme, decide rules, find people, define judges, define scoring criteria, assign topic or stub or whatever, come up with a way to discourage other users from working on the page (by far most difficult part requiring a lot of ingenuity and good ideas). Judge. Sounds simpler than it really is doesn´t it?

5. Keep it informal, simple and fun.

6. Find a name for it.

Wanna help me with this? I´ll set up a new page and hope to build a team of three people to make this happen.

Shabidoo | Talk 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, way too busy in real life to commit to this, but good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont really know where to start

but i guess a link to this discussion on Dabomb87's page. (its related to discographies, FL discographies and accessibility) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've asked a question of Jack Merridew and the MOSers.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Doubts

Hi there o RAMBLING one, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thanks for your assistance at Pablo Couñago, indeed. I only wanted to approach two things connected with the "matter at hand":

1 - the bit in intro. I understand he is still playing at Town, just i was never a fan of writing in present tense in an encyclopedia (also preparing the "terrain" for when he does leave the club, which won't be long), but OK, i don't own the "wiki-truth", don't worry mate, won't revert it again.

2 - in "Personal", you asked me not to create a TRIVIA list. What do you mean? It was never my intention, simply tried to separate contents therein.

Keep up the good work, take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vasco, thanks for your note. I accept Pablo is most likely on his way out, which is a shame, since he's a bit of a legend, but he may well continue playing, indeed even in England, so that's why I prefer the present tense. As for the trivia list, well a bullet point list of facts about someone is {{trivia}} as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually tempted to entirely remove that section as it's unreferenced anyway. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Sugababes discog

heyy, thanks for the nudge, i can probably sort out the last remaining points either later this evening or tomorrow. then i'll keep an eye on it to make sure it remains a high standard. thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I am a little new at figuring out on how to nominate a certain article for featured list. I am hoping to nominate List of Spider-Man (1994 TV series) episodes on here. One that was nominated once before. Can you give me a few insights. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Callaghan

I apologise if you were offended by my comments about Nigel Callaghan's reputation among fans of Aston Villa. I was only noting that he was not a popular player at the club for his performances with them, and in no way was I suggesting that any of the clubs fans - or at least those in their right mind - are not wishing him well in his current battle against cancer.

You also comment that it is against Wikipedia guidelines to add "point of view" statements into articles about living or deceased people, yet Wikipedia articles for numerous players (particularly current and former Liverpool players) note that they have polled at or near the top of polls among the club's fans who have been encouraged to nominate the player they regard as the best or worst to have turned out for that particular club, as well as those who are widely regarded as being among a club's best or worst players without referring to any specific polls. Sir Stanley, 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do this

but I'm getting fed up with it. The source cited in this edit doesn't mention anything at all to do with the content added. Struway2 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added some notes to his talkpage. If he persists then he'll be blocked, which would be a pity, but he's had fair warning... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
His edits strike me as mightily suspicious, given he's had plenty of warning. I can no longer assume good faith. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009

Hey, I've listed Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 at peer review, and would appreciate any feedback that you might be able to give me on this article, your input previously on FLs has always been useful. Kind regards, Harrias talk 11:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've made a few follow-up queries at the review. As always, your eye for detail far surpasses my half-hearted attempt at a copy-edit! Harrias talk 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dafydd James

I represent Dafydd James, and unfortunately you are posting things on this page which he does not wish to be on there, on top of which you are removing items he does. If you continue to do this, I will be reporting this to Wikipedia. I do hope you will take this into consideration in respecting his wishes if you wish to contribute to this page. Regards.

Please report whatever you like to whomsoever you feel appropriate. Nobody owns his page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Respect a persons feelings

Hi, I am disappointed with your attitude to Dafydd's page. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia, and the reason I joined what purely to edit the information of Dafydd's page as he found some of the things on there quite upsetting. Dafydd is a very close friend, and he does actually wish to continue his rugby career which he is actively trying to do. The content on his page is rather negative, and I really would appreciate it if you would allow me to try and make this a little more positive for his sake. I will refrain from making things seems lie 'advertising', although I don't see why his official website, which he actually writes himself, cannot be on here? He has personally asked me to do this for him and he too would be grateful if you would co-operate with this. Many thanks, Emma Emsylew (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact

Unfortunately some of what is written about Dafydd is not FACT. I have spoken to him regarding this and he will be rectifying this issue himself now. I really don't understand why you take the time to write about him, however make things so negative. There are many aspects of his career missing from this profile you have missed years out. He was actually the first player in Heineken Cup history to score twenty-five tries in the tournament! But this has been failed to be mentioned!! Only the fact that someone has overtaken his 29 try tally. Emsylew (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware of WP:COI - Dafydd should not be modifying his own article. Thanks. And suggesting that I have written this article is pretty far from the truth. Look at the article history to see who has contributed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FLC Nomination of Glee (season 1)

We haven't had a lot of opinions yet and the FLC is now a few days old. Would you be able to take a moment to give the page a quick review? Much appreciated as it's my first time nominating a page. CycloneGU (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summer Youth Olympics

Actually, the event runs until 26 August. I still just can't convince myself such a list is sufficently stable until the Cauldron is extinguished. Courcelles 09:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Courcelles 10:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

List review

I saw you archived your comments on the FLC review for The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates. Were you satisfied with the changes, or do you have concerns that make you uncomfortable in offering your support? If there are any issues, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Promoted, well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

2010/11 ITFC Season

I see that you are one of the main contributors to this page, and I would really like to help create a very informative overview of the 2010/11 Ipswich season. I recently created a table for the League Cup matches (thanks for adding the ref). What is your opinion on some other areas to be improved? I think the Statistics table could be a bit more informative (and the Player Name column is freakishly wide). I'm very new to editing pages, so I'm still learning how to format tables. TractorBoyJim (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing gets past you, I no, but to make sure...

Registrar of the University of Oxford and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Registrar of the University of Oxford/archive1. It's been a while: I've been off writing other stuff rather than lists, but I might be able to squeeze a couple more out by the end of the year. Might also get some work done... BencherliteTalk 23:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Still feeling ill after a flying visit to Cambridge County Court today, but hopefully will get the poisonous Tab air out of my lungs soon. I've got another Oxford list in mind (Keeper of the Archives: to my surprise, virtually all are notable!) and then I might just make good my promise to do a Cambridge list. Of course, I won't try as hard with that one... BencherliteTalk 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, since you got the last word.... You might enjoy reading Brian Twyne, btw (a little something I knocked up in preparation for the Keeper of the Archives list) for the Oxbridge rivalry about how big a lie they could eahc tell about their respective dates of foundation! BencherliteTalk 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Legends, MoS and its like...

I've taken care of your comments but a MoS issue was brought up by Struway2, could you have a look at it please? (Joan Gamper Trophy) Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything else that could sway your support? Btw, List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries has been at FLRC for ages, I think a close would be nice. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 09:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans

I see you have capped your FLC comments regarding 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans without supporting. This nom is getting kind of old. Is there anything I can do to get your support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping me again when you've taken care of the open issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Robert Bathurst filmography/archive1

Thank you for your comments at the above FLC, TRM. One of your comments is outstanding, namely filling blank cells. What can you suggest for this? Bradley0110 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

Hello TRM. I'd appreciate it if you have time to give feedback here. Good to see that Chuck has found his scoring boots for you, and captain as well! Our midfield has been so weak without him. Couldn't possibly swap him for Clark, Walton, Noone and Summerfield? ;) Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I should've read the top of your talk page instead of immediately clicking "New section"! Regards, Argyle 4 Lifetalk 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Glee (season 1) FLC Nom.

Wikibreak noted. Just reminding you of this. Courcelles did come along and give some insights, most of which are dealt with now, but still awaiting your insights as well. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow

What a kind gesture, thank you. I'm genuinely touched. If I live to make 60,000 edits, I'll probably be too senile to notice it, so in advance, I dedicate my 60,000th to you too. Cheers, mate. --Dweller (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Jazz Album

I re-nominated the list for FL status (unfortunately, I did not get enough feedback the first time for the list to be promoted). If you wish to re-evaluate the list or second your support, it would be much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dickin Medal Dogs.

If you were thinking of starting articles for any of these: Beauty DM, Brian DM, Mary of Exeter DM, Peter DM, Punch DM, Rex DM, Ricky DM, Rip DM, or Tich (Desert Rat), I have pics that can be added. Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Kesha

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Rambling Man. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kesha discography/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive done everything except the date - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything other then the date? If not then could you please strike you oppose? Thanks :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Glee Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, The Rambling Man. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Most of the fixes are done, and Courcelles came to clarify an earlier point so the cast references layout should be much better than ever now. I've left a comment under Guild Awards and this is open to discussion, and the metascore is actually referenced in the prose, not in the lead. These are both up for discussion still, but I do not understand your comment regarding "Schuester's wife". Everything else is fixed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FLCs

Ho hum

[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Family Guy episodes FLC

Your concerns have been addressed. Had a few questions on a couple though. Gage (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

4 HR FLC

I think I've answered your problems, sorry for the lengthy debate over silly things. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1992 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1

I have responded to your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1992 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You capped a lot of stuff, but did not respond to my query.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for promptly capping. Let me know if there is anything I can do to get your support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey singles discography FLC

Hi Rambling Man, Please comment back and take a look there, because I believe I have addressed all of your issues. Thanks.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for you imput. I have again fixed those last things you mentioned. Thanks for marking them resolved, but it still shows as "Oppose". Please see if thats in error, since they have been resolved.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Rambling Man, I corrected all you listed, and have added citations to pretty much every note possible. Thanks for you consistency with the page, and please check it out at your earliest convenience. Thanks! :D--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So I finally was able to do it correctly.lol. Please check it out now, I believe its what you wanted. If I finally addressed your issues, please don't forget to remove the Oppose. Thank you.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.

Thanks. I just did some cleanup on the redirects. Arbero (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Arbero (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your WRONG!

I will make all code uniform on all pages regardless of how much code in your mind it is and the tiebreaks were a critical issue that was resolved via consensus here and the standard is ndashes go look. This was laboriously talked about!69.137.121.17 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply put I am going by consensus and getting called to the carpet by an admin, ridiculuous! I sugguest that you take your conserns to WT:Tennis to get consensus changed!69.137.121.17 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No, this isn't a WP:TENNIS problem, it's a WP:MOS issue. We don't need to use html markup, when the native markup language support an en-dash. Stop being disruptive. Stop making a point. You've presented not a single good reason to use the markup rather than the symbol. Stop it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You must go to WP:Tennis to reform consenus right now because WP:MOS is not always to be followed and their can be made exclusions and exceptions to them! I am making an argument based on consensus of the tennis community and by the way yes I am bluedogtn and I will not edit from an account unless I have to in order to create pages or other issues! Do with them as you please because I dont give a shit anymore, I suggust you get on the Australian Men and Women Singles French Men and Women singles Wimbledon Men and Women singles and US Men and Women singles to fix them per your fancy!69.137.121.17 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not going anywhere you tell me to. All I'm doing is saying that is the same as – so edit-warring over it is a pointless and pathetic pursuit. I'm not going to take part in this discussion any more. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, 69.137.121.17. You are mistaken. – gives the en dash (–) but you can also use the – character which is still an en dash. You notice it is longer than a hyphen (-) and shorter than the em dash (—). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually we did discuss it throughout that talk about the tiebreaks. The last entries pointed out how easy it is for newcomers to make mistakes with the &ndash html and how clumsy the coding is. It was at that point it "should" have been put in the Tennis project scoring standards list but I don't know why it wasn't. I agree with you but, playing devils advocate, one reason to use the written out ndash is that a newcomer might glance at the symbol only and think it's a hyphen... and then use hyphens when he adds new entries. To me less coding and less errors far outweigh the written out &endash nomenclature. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Then, go and do all of the other articles like this because I am a uniformist! Don't just revert two pages because the other six needs to be done and to hell with it I am not doing it!69.137.121.17 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Transition

Be well in whatever personal transitions you go through my friend. Your efforts (even when clobbering me) are much appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what will make you feel better...

...making lots of rude comments at the FLC of Keeper of the Archives. Do your worst! BencherliteTalk 22:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll enjoy that! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comments about University Challenge before I watched it (we'd recorded it...) - wish I hadn't bothered, really! (Oh, and it's still only a GA not an FA - haven't yet summoned up the courage for the final push to the summit!) BencherliteTalk 09:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games/archive1

Thanks for your comments on my FLC. I believe I've addressed all of your concerns; let me know if there's any other changes you'd like me to make. Grondemar 03:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IP comments

How have we dealt with IP comments in the past (specifically supports and opposes)? See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest volcanic eruptions/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bryan Adams albums discography/archive1. Thanks for everything; I hope things work out IRL. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, have responded on your talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that was my opinion as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck

I came on to say thank you for your continued help at FLC, and having read the above I want to wish you well during this transitory period of your life. Stay safe. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Counties of Romania/archive1

I replied and/or fixed the issues you listed. Nergaal (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. There is currently an RfC in progress at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#RfC - 3.b review in progress regarding Criteria 3b of the featured list criteria and whether it should be modified or eliminated. As you participated in a previous discussion regarding Criteria 3b when it was first introduced, this discussion may be of interest to you. Grondemar 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the notification, definitely an appropriate course of action. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks and question

I just wanted to thank you for the thorough review of the stats page, in case you un-starred it, it definitely made the list better and I know it's not at all an interesting read. An unrelated question though, I browsed through WP:FL, does List of winners of the Mathcounts competition (needing a helping hand as well) really belong into the Mathematics section and not the awards section? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably belongs in awards, but it certainly needs a review. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir Stanley

No problem, might have mentioned him last night but having read the above I didn't want to pester you. Hope you're getting through it OK. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)

Hi! When you have time, could you drop by Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)/archive1? I fixed all issues. The people from WP:ACCESS seem to be happy about accessibility. The only open question seems to be how to deal with the imperial units. I'd appreciate if you could leave a short note ("Change" or "no change"). Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Stan

Hi, I have reverted a few of Stans additions but I had thought recently that at least he had started adding the occasional supporting citation...perhaps a RFC user might help the user get some feedback? Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He's back


Your guidance required

Hi sir. As a new admin in town, I wished your guidance with respect to one particular AfD that was closed today by a non-administrator as Delete, quoting your reference.

  • I was given to understand that non-administrators cannot close Delete AfDs at all. But in this case, it was. So my first query is, are non-administrators allowed to close 'delete' AfDs under certain circumstances?
  • I was also given to understand that an administrator who has voted in an AfD discussion should not be involved in any way whatsoever during closing the AfD discussion. I noticed that you deleted the article approximately a day before the AfD was marked as closed by the non-administrator. Is that also allowed under special circumstances? Thanks and apologies for the inconvenience.

Sincerely, Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    • No inconvenience at all really. The second time I read that "article", I realised it was a pretty disgusting breach of BLP, so I just deleted it, based also on the fact that the AFD was in favour of that as well. It was unvconventional, I agree, and don't make a habit of it, but it was "for the good of the Wiki". It's one way (I think) of looking at WP:IAR. Put it this way, if I'd have seen the article before AFD, I'd have speedy deleted it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, the non-admin closure here is merely a paperwork formality. Non-admins cannot decide to close an AFD as delete, but they can when an admin has already deleted the article, yet the AFD is open, as the actual decision has already been made. In this case, the non-admin was doing work that at FFD there is a bot for, procedurally closing discussions when the admin action has already been taken. (As after a deletion, there is little point to more discussion.) Courcelles 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, both of you :) I leave this silly messages from time to time :) Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, and thanks Courcelles for the extra info. It wasn't a silly message at all, a question well worth an answer or two. Don't hesitate to ask more as you're finding your feet with the mop! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Metallica concert tours/archive3

I think I've fixed all the issues raised. Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Spain/archive1

I've mended these issues, care to stop back over? Grsz11 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox

What should I do with this thing I created? It is 60 thousand bytes in size, should it be apart of the her main page or new page?69.137.121.17 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I did Chris Evert's grand slam history.69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Before I get started ...

Hi, Rambling Man.

Recently I compiled a filmography of American movie actress Thelma Todd, which I'd like to put up as a Wikipedia list. I have figured that if I'm going to do that I would try to make it into a Featured List. However, the bulk of the information for the list came from the IMDb, which is about the only source I could find. The American Film Institute's online catalog was of some help, but they only cover feature films whereas Todd made many two-reel sorts. In the past I've encountered complaints that the IMDb is considered an unreliable source. So ... before I get started, I'll ask you this: How are the chances of getting the list up to FL status by way of the IMDb? — Jimknut (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Moar FLC stuff

FLC question

TRM, I'm probably being a pain, but I'm wondering if Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 1)/archive1 is the FLC you meant to promote, as I don't see any declarations there other than an oppose, while the similarly titled, but different Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy episodes/archive1 has quite a few supports. Courcelles 12:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bugger. That's what you get when people keep interrupting your train of thought at work. Good spot. Will go remedy... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Damage undone, I think... Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think you're still one edit away; [2] you removed the Ciara FLC, not the promoted one. Courcelles 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wishful thinking

This made me chuckle. We don't have "Ipswich 3 - 0 Manchester United", we have "Ipswich 3–0 Manchester United". Do we, I don't recall that scoreline lately. Harking back to August 1978 under Sir Bobby, with two from Paul Mariner and one from Brian Talbot is showing your age! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well. I could have said Man U 9 - 0 Ipswich, but no-one remembers that in the reverse fixture that season, we won 3–2 and United lost the league by two points........ The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about removing this post. It was an accident while I was checking my watchlist. It happens to me alot for some reason.--WillC 06:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Metallica Talk Page

Hey, some of them are very very old and completely useless, some of them was suggestions to be added in the main page that all of them were approved. Nima1024 (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Any idea?

And then how? Nima1024 (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks,, Done and a question, how can I add an archive box like your talk page on the right of the page? Nima1024 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, is there anyway specific way to add a user for maintained part? I mean this The following users are actively involved with this article, and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources. Thanks! Nima1024 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC

Not to be pushy or anything, but can you change that :| into a :)? As in give a support vote here? Not sure what your custom is; thanks =), ResMar 22:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[3]. I know this means I now have two running but the other hasn't been edited in 14 days. Hope thats okay, if not do what you must. :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Celine Dion albums discography FLC

Hi, I have fixed the things you mentioned. Thank you for all the details you have pointed out. Could you do the same again? --Max24 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again,
if everything is fixed, can you support the article now?--Max24 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the nudge, I'll hopefully get time to revisit this later today. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Indian Mary 3.jpg <font=3> Thanks again for your helpful advice. List of longest streams of Oregon made featured list today.
Finetooth (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Oregon Rivers.png

Bryan Adams discography

So when are you going to pass the article, I mean nodoby opposes it, with the exception of two IP users who have forgotten about my nom.. So when? --TIAYN (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It has not received a substantial amount of support either though. So I won't be "passing" the article any time soon. I suggest you ask other regular reviewers if they'd be kind enough to spend some time looking at the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluedogtn

I am leaving wikipedia as of 04:00 01 October 2010 in order to do someting else in my life man. I ask that you block all of my accounts at that time. I have tidyed up all the loose ends of my editing on here, so may God Bless you if you believe in him. THANKS!BLUEDOGTN 05:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluedog, admins are usually discouraged from blocking as a means of "enforcing" WikiBreaks or retirements. You may wish to use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Good luck in your future endeavors, and I hope to see you back editing soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, per Dabomb87, I won't be blocking your accounts. If you wish to vanish, then you could see WP:RTV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bennett Cup

Give me a few minutes and I'll have a couple of thoughts up on the article's talk page. Looks like an interesting one! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Saw this today and wondered if it might be any use for your current effort. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi RR, yeah, I'm following it minute-by-minute. Now been nine hours since any contact with the US balloon. I wouldn't fancy taking on a bunch of lightning over the Adriatic in a hydrogen balloon. Thanks for the pointer though. Fancy a quick glance at the article? Any comments would be good...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Bluegrass Album

Thanks, as always. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Ian Botham/archive1

TRM, would invite comment from you on Struway2's comments at this review, given your efforts on the Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath five-for lists. Regards, Harrias talk 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Bonanza episodes

Hi, Rambling Man.

I need your help ... again. I put up a new page a few days ago called List of Bonanza episodes. Afterwards, a placed a peer review requests but withdrew before anyone responded and placed the article as a featured list candidate. In hindsight this seems like a stupid thing to do. So what I would like to do now is withdraw the FLC and re-open the peer review. I'm not quite sure how to do this, though. Can you help? — Jimknut (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimknut, I've withdrawn the FLC for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you care...

(Per quote): This proposal may interest you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dates of events surrounding Moors Murders

This link from BBC News states that the inquiry into the disappearance of Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett was re-opened in April 1986.[1] And this second link states that Brady and Hindley confessed to the murders in November of that year.[2] This supports the edit that I made when correcting the date of the inquiry opening and Brady and Hindley confessing to 1986 from 1985. I am very sorry if you are mistaken, as you were only a year out. Sir Stanley, 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Magnum Rolle peer review

Would you mind reviewing Magnum Rolle at Wikipedia:Peer review/Magnum Rolle/archive1? I have worked hard on this article and want to bring it to featured status! ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

FLCs

Hi

Could you check whether the articles I listed in the the discussion here needs to be delisted? I'm asking since you seem to be really experienced with featured list and all. If its not too much trouble, could you leave a reply on my page? Thanks. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Celine Dion singles discography/archive1

Hi, is there any chance you could share your opinion about Celine Dion singles discography FL nomination?. Your comments about her albums discography were very helpful. I'm asking because in 2 days I'm going on vacations for over 2 weeks and I won't be able to fix anything if any comments/opposess appear...--Max24 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect I'll just be watching the nomination. Don't worry, there's no deadline here. It'll still be around when you get back! Have a good holiday! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your nomination

Sorry about that. You really didn't have to withdraw and delete the nom. I mean I had no problem with it, it is just my observation that Dabomb is upholding that rule quite strictly and I don't want others to feel like some of us had special treatment, that's all. Anyway, it is probably my fault. Sorry about this again.—Chris!c/t 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Despite this I do apologise for how this FLC panned out. I really wasn't trying to be awkward. I do think the changes are an improvement and I'm sorry if I took any enjoyment out of editing/FLC. If it is any consolation I wasn't enjoying reviewing it by the end. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

FLC issue

If you have time, could you comment on the source issue here? Thanks in advance. Candyo32 02:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

PDSA Gold Medal

It was featuring rather heavily on my watchlist, so I thought I'd take a look. I steer clear of the featured content processes nowadays, but good luck with the FLC. Yomanganitalk 12:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. Grondemar 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Celine Dion singles discography FLC

Hello. I am filling in for Max during his absence, so if you have concerns, I will answer them. I have fixed all the issues you mentioned Rambling Man. Thanks.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have time...

Did your convert error problem get sorted at GB (if so any idea what it was?). Also if you have time before you go away, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NME number-one singles from the 1960s/archive1 could do with a revisit. If not, have a nice break. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume that the Gordon Bennett error sorted itself out. Have a nice break. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no idea what it was and I wasn't going to spend too much time trying to work it out! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing again. I thought I had got away without making a mistake the other night but alas it didnt happen. In the FLC I meant to write "I'm surprised you're not fed up with the amount of Argyle content yet!" I saw it just now after I logged in and I expect it made me look like an ass! Argyle 4 Lifetalk 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Wales international footballers (alphabetical)

Hi, hope you can help with this query. The above page listing all Welsh football internationals was originally at List of Wales international footballers (which is now a redirect for it). Back in the summer someone produced a new page only listing those players with 25 or more caps but they put it at List of Wales international footballers, thus moving the original page to the 'alphabetical' location. Following some discussion at Footy I have recently moved the new page to List of Wales international footballers with 25 or more caps to better reflect the content, but when the original summer move was made I don't think it was made correctly as the page history does not match up. I understand you are an admin and may be able to assist with this. If you look at the 25+ list all page history prior to June 2010 should be a part of the 'alphabetical' lists history. Hope this all makes sense and you are able to help. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir Stan

Looking through his edit history I realised [he hasn't made a talkpage edit for over three months and has made less than 40 in his whole time here. His lack of communication is a big part of the problem and I get the feeling he is just not listening to anything anyways, not even a comment when he was blocked for a week. Wiki servers are slow right now , could we ask an admin to put him on a no additions without cite edit restriction? Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please point out a specific article which I created or contributed to and you felt was not "genuine". (Sir Stanley) 14:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been more careful to use more reliable sources for articles, for instance no longer using blogs for sources as I did when adding information about the alleged alcoholism of one now-deceased individual. (Sir Stanley) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but in this edit he's added sources, and made an attempt at formatting, but still added information not mentioned in those sources. Between them, the sources verify the schools attended by Wayne and Coleen Rooney. They don't mention them meeting in 2002, largely because (according to the Coleen Rooney article) they met several years earlier, nor do they mention 2002 being the year they both left school. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They began their relationship in 2002, and I have found a source for this date[4]; stating they were both 16 at the time - so between her 16th birthday (April 2002) and his 17th (October 2002). This is what I meant by them meeting in 2002. (Sir Stanley) 15:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Peru

I've made some edits to List of World Heritage Sites in Peru if you care to take another look at the FLC. Grsz11 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of KC with Oak Leaves recipients

I believe to have addressed all your comments. Thanks for the constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Bluegrass Album

A reviewer opposed the list for FL status, though I am hoping for additional feedback from reviewers (or even a director) before making changes. I simply want Grammy-related FLs to be consistent for the most part. If you have any feedback or comments, feel free to add your thoughts to the nomination page. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to hold off on editing the Bluegrass list until this MoS issue is resolved. I left "Doing..." on the nomination page so prevent the FLC page from being closed, but feel free to let me know (or comment on the nomination page) if I am required to make any improvements to the list, etc. This has been quite confusing... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FLC can really frustrate me...

...more random moving goalposts in my opinion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. MOS is becoming a recurring joke, (e.g. alt text) and it's not going to be long before we have to either stick to a "version" of MOS (i.e. one which is stable) or abstract ourselves altogether (which is highly undesirable). Whenever the MOS folks desire a change, its knock-on effect (it would appear) is not considered, nor are stakeholders (like FLC contributors) notified beyond this sweeping "oppose" motion. Poor, poor behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: FLS

I've set a thread up here with some background and my main concerns. I would like yourself and the other FL director to comment to if possible. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be struggling with the concept that WP:ACCESS is itself a part of the manual of style and under the section titled 'Data tables' it shows the correct format for tables. (sorry to sound blunt) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not trying to be rude, and I am adapting each response to match the comments made by others. I'm pointing everyone to WP:ACCESS because that's the specific page within the MOS that states exactly how data tables should be formatted. That is the part of the MOS which states the changes I am trying to get people to adopt. I genuinly am trying to be as informative and as helpful as possible as you'll see with my interactions here -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The creation of WP:ACCESS is the change... the fact that it exists as part of the Manual of Style is the creation of the stance on things like wikitable. I don't know how much clearer I can explain it. Now that the page has stabled its important that others get involved in discussing and understanding the changes. One of the featured list candidate criterias is compliance with MOS... I am merely trying to get people to see that ACCESS was created to update the manual of style and hence pages like WP:Wikitable were updated. I'm going to leave a note for other Project Access users to get involved in this debate because I sense its turning a bit sour and it shouldn't really. A difference of opinion helps inform good discussion but we shouldn't fall out over it. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well because its so unknown not many people know that its part of MOS. But It was always my understanding that MOS is the policy not guideline. Therefore if there are pages such as WP:ACCESS#Data tables which say: changes are "high priority", "low difficulty" it beggars belief as to why people are so reluctant to consider changes. FL candidates are listed for people to comment on right? Well that's what I've done... I've noticed a part of the MOS I have been involved with is so badly implemented across articles that I have commented that articles if they are to be of their highest standard, should meet the new requirements. Whilst there is some debate over discographies the format for standard tables is well established. I can sense your not that keen personally on the changes... Can I ask why? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh, Lil-unique, MOS pages say right at the top "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style", not "This policy is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style." There's a big bold link there to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to explain the difference. If you're going to whack everyone over the head with a MOS point, please (a) know the difference between a guideline and a policy, and (b) know into which class MOS pages fall. If you don't, then you don't help your case. Similarly when you argue that everyone should follow the "new approved standards" at a WikiProject's proposed style page. BencherliteTalk 22:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
And when MOS pages contravene the MOS (e.g. bold links in the lead, to name but one of many failings) I fail to take them at all seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, when the very first thing people read on the main page is a bold link to today's TFA (let alone multiple bold links in DYK and ITN), it always seems odd to complain about them elsewhere! BencherliteTalk 08:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've often wondered about that. Perhaps that fits in with the fact that MOS is a guideline, not a policy. And as such we can be "sensible" about things and not do this sort of ACCESS thing at the drop of hat... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit to Nigel Lawson

I last edited this article on 13 July 2010, quite some time before any concerns with my edits arose. I apologise for my failure to add a source - or a reliable one - for the content which I added to that article, and following our recent discussions I am definitely more careful now than I was then. I will, however, try and find a reliable source for the edits which I made to that article. User:Sir Stanley User talk:Sir Stanley, 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: DYK on Irma?

Cool, sounds like a good idea. I had been working towards getting the word count above 1500 in order to qualify for the DYK and certainly I'd like to have a look at the other Dickin Medalists and it may even draw me away from my usual dog related topics! I certainly noted that there seemed to be a great deal of articles regarding the pigeons who had been awarded Dickin Medals on a couple of Australian Newspaper archives I found online.

I'm registered as a reader at the British Library and I'm aiming to get to the newspaper archive to look up a few different things for articles and I'll make sure to note down the award dates for the medals to see if I can gather any more information from the newspapers of the time.

But I'm always up for a collaboration, so if you have any ideas for what to work on together, let me know. Miyagawa (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

I was wondering if you knew what the guideline is on excessive reverting? the only guideline I'm aware of is 3RR. Afro (Talk) 11:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Move a misplaced FAC to FLC

Hi, [according to this diff] the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/List_of_countries_by_future_HDI_projections_of_UN/archive1 would like help moving it to FLC. I've also notified User:Dabomb87 and User:SandyGeorgia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Spice and Wolf episodes

Hey. I was planning on submitting List of Spice and Wolf episodes to FLC in the near future. Given your expertise in FLs, would you mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FLC

I would, in fact, be much obliged if you could do closures this week; I just don't see myself having time for doing much of anything until at least after next weekend. I can't say enough about how impressed I am with your multifaceted efforts at FLC. Keep up the good work (and thanks, as always), Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire/archive1

I've replied :)--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found the post above. Sorry!--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 23:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the block on simple

So you told me to leave you a message at EN. --Divebomb (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated

See User talk:Peter Horn/Archive 2 Reviewer (right) granted Peter Horn User talk 00:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1943

Please explain. I don't understand. Currently no issues regarding the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 have been reorted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue to withdraw the list, which is not the point here. I do fully understand than nobody has reviewed the 1942 list yet. But I fail to see the link why the 1943 list cannot be submitted for further review. Please help me understand why I should remove a separate list from the review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay understood! Shall remove both the 1942 and 1943 nomination, or just the 1943? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
done! MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Plain row headers

I just had a look at Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning), but it's not a suitable example for testing "plainrowheaders" because it has right-aligned dates which are the obvious row headers. Do you have another candidate to test on? --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Freedom Award? Or any other list linked to from my user page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
LOL - another one that doesn't have left-alignment! I've sandboxed a version at User:RexxS/Freedom Award, if you step through the history, you can see what I've done. You (naturally) won't like the left-aligned dates. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I do like that. I tried my own attmempts on PDSA Gold Medal and ICC Cricket Hall of Fame. Do I fail? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
ICC Cricket Hall of Fame is excellent! If I were blind, I could go down the column called "Tests", for example, and I'd hear "Tests; Sydney Barnes; 27" then "Tests; Ken Barrington; 82" and so on.
You've done PDSA Gold Medal correctly as well, but I'm not sure I'd have chosen the same key as you did. Going down the "Date of incident" column, I'd hear "Date {pause} of Incident; November 2002*; May 1990", while I think I'd prefer to hear "Date of incident; Bulla; May 1990". In other words, I'd prefer the recipient for the row headers, and my natural inclination would be to re-arrange the table to put that column first. The {pause} happens because you've forced a new line in the text at that point, and screen readers usually pause before reading a new line. I'd get rid of the BR tags in "Date of award" and "Date of incident" – you really don't need them as the browser can sort out text wrapping. You also end up with "Date of incident" spread over three lines if you view the table in a 1024x768 window.
There's no pass/fail :D – it's all a process of steady improvement in small steps, and you've improved both those tables. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks for your feedback. As you may have seen, there's some concern over one last thing, the grey background. I'm happy to leave "my" lists with these for the time being, but if we could discuss that a little over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css and perhaps find a similarly mutually acceptable solution, like we did for row headers? I'll need to think again over the "key" in each of these tables. It's an interesting new take for me to place myself in the position of someone having the webpage transliterated to them by a machine...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
We have an admin and long-term editor, User:Graham87 who is blind and uses JAWS. He's fantastically helpful when asked (as I did yesterday about captions), and at the risk of over-working him, you could always get his opinion on how he manages with list articles – he'd really be the best judge of how accessible they are. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like an excellent idea. I'll think about what I want to ask him, and go for it. Thanks for the pointer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Me, again

Could you please peek here? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Is football ambiguous,should we used a hot-note?

Hi,

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football as more input is required and your as listed as being interested in sport and/or football at peer review. Gnevin (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

All this ACCESS stuff

I haven't really been keeping tabs lately but I notice you've been implementing it to some of your lists, so something must have changed. What's happening with the plainheaderrow stuff. I thought the CSS was (or was about to be) changed so we wouldn't have darker cells and bold text at the beginning of each row. I notice your implementation still retains these features so my question is three-fold: what does the new plainrow whatever-it-is-called do, have you chosen to leave each row heading bold/darker, and is this required (because personally I don't think it looks right in a lot of cases). Thanks, and sorry I haven't kept abreast with developments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on the browser because with the plainrowheaders, the only visual difference to me is the left-alignment of the first cell in each row (except the heading row). I'm trying it out on a couple of lists just to gauge how difficult it is to implement. Seems pretty straightforward, and I'm not seeing undesirable effects, at least not on the lists I've changed. [checking] No, you're right, it is a grey background. Hmm, I'll look again! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I can see the grey background, but text on my screen in the first column is plain (i.e. seems to be doing what the plainrowheaders is intended to do...). I'm focussing discussion on these technical aspects over at Mediawiki talk:Common.css if you'd like to catch up with where we are (it's a little bit techy for me, but the guys there are being helpful)... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, after re-caching/purging MediaWiki:Common.css I now no longer get the bold in FF and IE (re-doing the cache in Chrome is too laborious for me to bother but it should be the same) but, like you, I still get the darker cells. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll pursue it. Feel free to join in! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I just read (a little of) that discussion that you pointed to in the FLC, and I'm sorry to see how underrepresented you must have felt over there. Know that you're not the only one who shares those views. Sorry you got a little bit beat up. You've got my support in trying to keep FLC in compliance with the MOS proper. — KV5Talk • 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, and thanks for your message, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FLC of List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents)

Hi! Just wonder why you placed List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) at "Nominations urgently needing reviews" since all objections have been addressed and it has received 3 support votes so far. Do you think that it needs more reviews? bamse (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It just hasn't attracted much attention since (about) 24 October so I was hoping for one last look at it from someone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I see. Will leave a message at the respective wikiprojects. Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All things listy

Firstly, sorry bout that I conflicted through your close and although I doubt it matters I was carelessly ignorant of the close not willfully ignoring it. Secondly, for my FLC not sure if your last comment about four way sorting was stating opposition to it, impartiality towards it, or just looking for another user to comment on it. Hopefully everything else there is fine now. Thirdly, give me a nudge if you want any help with your FL sweeps. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, thanks. Right now, I couldn't care less about any of this. I've found myself so demoralised by the access nightmare that I'm thinking of jacking it all in, wholesale. Sortwise, just looking for other input. FL-wise, I'm expecting an oppose on everything from now on from ACCESS because we don't use !scope or +caption or all the other things that truly wreck presentation (in my opinion, of course, before the vultures descend) to all but a hundredth of our viewers. Not sure why I give so much time to this project any more. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

Since you failed to link to any actual discussion of any issues relating to the page, and you did not point out any issues yourself, I can only assume that you notified me of these so-called problems in error. If you discover any real issues to raise regarding the page, feel free to let me know.RandomCritic (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Notified of numerous issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that you haven't exactly gone out of your way to explain exactly what is wrong with this list, and thus allow us to do anything about it, giving us til Monday to resolve issues you only just raised (on someone else's talk page!) seems a bit unfair. Serendipodous 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
While corrective action is being taken, I won't take this through our regular process. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Triple centuries list

Hey, just had a look through this article with a view to repairing it, but it looks to be a fair bit of work. What's your opinion on the Notes section with prose about each triple? Personally I'm not keen on it, if I were to fix the article up, I'd either cut it completely, or incorporate it into some sort of prose such as as List of Manchester City F.C. managers, what do you think? Harrias talk 17:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, I've emailed you in the interim. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, replied to your email. Harrias talk 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1

Hey TRM, would you mind checking out Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of X-Men video games/archive1 again? It looks like Guyinblack has addressed your comments if you'd like to take a look. Nomader (Talk) 23:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of leaders of the Soviet Union/archive2

Can you revisit by FL article review, I've responded to all your comments and i'm waiting for you to remove your oppose. --TIAYN (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna discography

Can you please take another look at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Rihanna discography/archive1? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look...

Resolved: thank you :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

at here. Is this ready for FL or not? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

hello rambler. First thank you for your great subpage. Second I hope you didn't mean the page Santana discography but List of awards and nominations received by Santana, as you wrote on my talk page ^^. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I took a look on your subpage, but my problem is my english :/.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There's one sentence I want ot ask:
  • # Don't start with "This is a list of"... It isn't engaging writing and it's been discouraged for months now.
I like the sentence, so is this possible to change this sentence, to such as:
  • This is a comprehensive list of...

Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it'd be better starting with something like "Santana is a ... who has been nominated for, an won, a number of awards during his career." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: FLC

Not at all! If at first you don't succeed and all that. :) I'll know better what I'm doing the next time around. Thanks for your comments! — Hunter Kahn 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FL criteria

Hi Rambling Man. I've been looking through FL candidates, and noticed your username over and over again deep in the discussions. I'd like to know your opnion on something. I just tried to get Randall (given name) rated as a GA, but an experienced reviewer thinks it's really a list, and pointed towards FL instead. So, would I need to post a ref for every person to prove that each one is so-named (and a ref to prove their dates/nationality/occupations/etc)? It seems like i would (at least for the names), but that's a lot of really tedious work, and I don't really want to even try that unless an experienced editor in FLs thinks that this article could eventually pass as one.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brianann, thanks for your note. Yes, it does look rather listy and yes, I'm afraid our community would probably look for a reference for each one... that's not great news is it? It's also a {{dynamic list}} I reckon as it may be that you haven't managed to identify every single Randal(l) in the world...! But I would say it had a chance at WP:FLC if it was fully referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll look into it some more then, and think of how I'll tackle this. I'll add the template too. Funnily enough I don't feel as discouraged as before, haha! Thanks.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes

Hi - Is there anything else you felt needed doing?.Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

FLCs

Can't promote Jesse Owens Award (your FLC) because I supported it already. You'll have to ask that other delegate guy to make a final decision on it. I can close the others, though there are a couple I haven't read, and I'm slammed with real-life work at the moment. Not sure I can get to the ones I haven't looked at today, but if not I should be able to read them tomorrow. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed that one. TRM, can you take care of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1994 College Baseball All-America Team/archive1? Both Giants and I have supported it. Thanks, and sorry for being criminally negligent in my FLC duties this week. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

santana discography

hello,

I want to start to add this to the candidates for FLC. Might you have a look at the lead, please? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot - WMUKBot

Yes, I originally converted the user pages to talk pages but then my computer restarted and then forgot I had to convert again. My bad. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 12:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

santa

hello,

is it possible to nominate 2 versions of an article and they decide, what version is better? I want to nominate the original and the one in my sandbox. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would advise against that. What you should do is go to peer review or to leave a message on WT:FLC to get regulars to help you with your decision. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Can you delete my nomination please? I don't think that this list will pass, not only because it is nearly 7 days old, also it got 2 opposes. I want to nominate this disco, but this list of awards another time. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify that you'd like to withdraw the nomination of List of awards and nominations received by Santana from WP:FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
None of the three sentences in WP:FLC fit to my withdraw. However, is it possible to place a second nomination, because this didn't receive substantial support. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still not sure what you mean. Let's do one thing at a time... Do you want to withdraw List of awards and nominations received by Santana from FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
yes-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thank you-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:GO

You changing the date format on me? :) [5] --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just fancied a change! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing AfD comments

There is no reason I can think of to remove AfD comments as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henin–Jankovic rivalry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jankovic–V. Williams rivalry, especially with no explanation. If they are invalid for some reason (a sockpuppet, for example) then it is better to just strike them through. Please tell me if I have missed some good reason for deleting them but, since I cannot see one, I have undone your change.--KorruskiTalk 12:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI - there is now some further discussion of this on my talk page.--KorruskiTalk 12:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Replied. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

re: Timeline

No problem! Admittedly I forgot a bit about that one while I was focusing on mine. Speaking of which, do you have any more recommendations? I feel like my FLC has really grown during its process, and I don't just want to see it fail after all of this work. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Michael O'Shaughnessy, Jr.

I don't know what to do about this article. It's a mess, and probably an autobiography. Is there an appropriate place to ask for attention for articles about sportspeople? Or maybe just biographies. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

With something like 5 GHits, including three in Wikipedia, I suspect we're dealing with self-promotion here. If you feel compelled to chase it then I would suggest either "prod" or, if that failed, take it to AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Premiers of the Soviet Union (review)

I've left some comments for you on the review page. --TIAYN (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Rihanna discography/archive1

Can you please revisit the above? Ta. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Attaching User Account

Hello Ramblin Man,

My name is Makeslong on the german wikipedia. My user name was registered by someone else on the english (and russian) wikipedia and being abused. It was banned for 2 years. Now my user name on the english wikipedia is not banned anymore, but I can't attach it to my german account since it has a different password which I don't know. Is there a way I can get my user name back on the english wikipedia? Regards, Makeslong

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Makeslong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Makeslong

94.217.245.167 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FLC for 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table

The FLC is stagnating; my co-nominator has only made one edit in the last month. He initiated the FLC but would it be okay if I formally withdrew it from consideration? Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 13:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly request its withdrawal, and I will process it as soon as I can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
All right, thanks, it's done. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 14:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Chistmas to you too Rambling Man. :) Orashmatash (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Norwich F.C.

Hello mate, I'm translating Norwich F.C. article into italian, and I've found a problem: many of the references doesn't work (especially the ones by the official website), or are not updated. I saw you featured the article, so i was asking if you could solve this problem. Speek you soon, --Andrea 93 (msg) 08:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You could try User:Dweller for the references as he found most of them. You could always try the wayback machine for deadlinks as well. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mate!

F*uck you for blocking me mate. Just wanted to say F*uCK you for blocking me. But ya s*hitty brain can't work out that I can easily change IP so your blocks are redundant and ineffective. Try blocking me now b*astard, if you dare, cause I'll just change my IP and continue to vandalize Wikipedia elsewhere. I can't be stopped! My IP is dynamic and goes over a broad range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.241.143 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your apology, mate. But don't be disillusioned thinking that'll stop me vandalizing wikipedia. I'm angry because I was editing in good faith and was blocked but you moderators don't seem to bother. Now I've turned into a vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.66.6 (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I only blocked you when you blatantly vandalised articles. Makes no difference to me, you're a vandal and I'll block you everywhere you go. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Marie

Hi,

Have you started an RFC as you suggested regarding this editor yet? I don't see it, but I might not be looking in the right place. a_man_alone (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't started it. I'm trying to remain as uninvolved as possible, I've had run-ins with this editor before so don't feel best placed to start an objective RFC/U. I was hoping someone else would do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I could quote the above almost verbatim as well - could be we're all waiting for somebody else to start it. a_man_alone (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. That's why I asked BrownHairedGirl and Kittybrewster to consider it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Santana discography/archive2

hello,

could I add another list to the FLC, without withdraw this disco? That's because User:AlastorMoody didn't address since 12th December, but he is "very willing to reconsider, I'm fair don't worry", he wrote in his comment there. I think he will come back to this FLC, but I won't wait so long until he write something back. Is this possible? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Come one answer me, please :). I have a large queue for FLC. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. The existing nomination has outstanding oppose !votes and no support. You'd be better off asking all the reviewers to revisit the FLC and address outstanding issues on this FLC before attempting to start another one, per the FLC instructions... "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I decided to withdraw my nomination, until it is 20:15 P.M. (CET). If he didn't address his comments, then please withdraw this nomination. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn per request. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

James Chichester-Clark

Hi Rambling Man

You did the right thing altering the level of the heading which Lucy-marie had applied when she moved part of a discussion at Talk:James Chichester-Clark, but unfortunately that still left my comments removed from the policy claim to which they were replying .. so I have moved them back in place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey. No worries. I get the feeling you're going round in circles with her right now. Good luck. Do consider WP:RFC/U, it would be helpful to the whole community to get this sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is rather circular. :( I am often unsure when to give up on someone when things do get circular, but I generally think it's worth a few rounds to try to make progress. However, there's no sign of any progress there, so it's time to give up on that particular point. Hopefully someone else will bring something to the Chichester-Clark/Moyola discussion which will help me make up my mind!
I have indeed been considering WP:RFC/U, and I agree that it's probably the right thing to do. I have held back partly because there is a lot of work in setting up such a discussion and in amassing the evidence as it progresses, and I think that it's a better use of everyone's time if that can be avoided. Maybe it can't be avoided, but I haven't quite given up hope just yet, and maybe be warnings about WP:BOOMERANG in the WQA discussion will help?
The other reason I'm holding back is that the intensity of scrutiny at RFC/U is a fairly uncomfortable process for the editor being scrutinised. Sometimes the pain of an RFC/U is necessary, but if the feedback at WQA prompts a rethink, then I reckon everyone will have benefitted from having held back on the RFC/U. I'm not holding my breath, but since we have already dissuaded Luciy-marie from continuing her mass move-warring for now, I don't think it's impossible that there may be further progress.
Let's take a look again in a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from the beachfront in warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers dude. Enjoy that beachfront. I've got rain and fog in the UK! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm learning...

Thanks for your comments... I am trying to clear up the pages for the Desert Valley Star and the American Free Journal weekly newspapers. I'm no expert about Wiki but am citing references and doing the best I can for notability and presenting unbiased and accurate information. I appreciate any and all guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotWater (talkcontribs) 20:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS guidance

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions today. I probably owe KV5 an apology for ending up using his nomination as a discussion space on dealing with awkward symbols. I decided I'd just boldly edit the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Text, and see if it sticks. Do you think that is sufficient guidance, or does it need expansion or clarification? Regards --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

While I was editing MOS:ACCESS, I spotted the guidance on italic text that I couldn't remember the location of: "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion) ..." at WP:ACCESS#Text (no. 2). The implication is that italic text, if used as a key, won't necessarily convey the intended information to a screen reader (unless they have sounding of text attributes turned on). That partially contradicts the guidance at WP:ACCESS#Color and I think I've overburdened KV5 too much already, so I'm really just mentioning it to you as a "heads-up" for the future. --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps ACCESS guys can check this out and get some consistency across the guidelines before we try to roll out one more change? I think this is another example as to why people find ACCESS guidelines so onerous, not only do they seem to change reasonably regularly, they contradict themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In this case, it's not really a contradiction, since italic text is clearly a good visible indicator for colour-blind viewers (which is the point of that section), but is obviously less useful for blind viewers. Nevertheless, I agree that ACCESS should be clearer in the guidance it gives in that respect, and I'll try to open a discussion there to seek ideas on how it can be better phrased. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well if we're driven by the lowest common denominator (for want of a better phrase) or least able viewers, then italics are not suitable for ACCESS and it should say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it should. I'm just waiting to see if there are any objections that I haven't thought of before I remove it. I've usually found that amending MOS is the wikipedia equivalent of cutting the Gordian Knot, and there's really no point in having guidance that isn't actually helpful to editors. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

FLC guidance?

Hi again. I wonder if you would revisit Wikipedia:FLC#List_of_selected_stars_for_navigation. I believe all your points, with perhaps the exception of what we were calling the "HOWTO issue", have been addressed. I've been back to the review and the list probably two-dozen times since finishing up the ACCESS issues with RexxS, and haven't been able to get any traction on the "HOWTO issue". If cutting the words "easily identifiable" would solve the problem, I'd happily do it. OTOH, it seems useful to mention that Orion is very easy to spot, as opposed to, say Draco. I assumed that the other star-chart subsections would have HOWTO-ish text, but if they do, I'm just not seeing it now. Cheers. HausTalk 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! HausTalk 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Change of username request

Dear Rambling Man,

To completely perserve my personal identity I would like please to change my username from Skreen to Drumcliffe (I checked it is available). Your help would be appreciated.

With thanks in advance,


Skreen (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a big problem, but please fill out a request at WP:CHU. It should be dealt with promptly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Collingwood

You and Dweller (talk · contribs) are the leading contributor's to Collingwood's article, but neither of you have edited the article since 2009. Are you maintaining the article? Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles on sportsmen are a time sink until the subject retires. Hopefully just playing in ODIs and T20Is will make things easier to stay on top of. My prose in cricket articles isn't great, and usually a bit jargon-y (see Mashrafe Mortaza or Paul Horton for examples) but I was thinking if no one else is picking up the baton my dodgy prose may have to do. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One to keep an eye on?

Things are getting fiesty over at Fiona Shackleton - [6]. Might be worth watching... a_man_alone (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, what a palava. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your help is needed please

Thanks for your fast response to my earlier request to change my username to Drumcliffe. I went to the page that you directed (as I did before contacting you)and cannot locate the request form but just the helpful guide. Your guidance/help would be appreciated and sorry for wasting your time.

Yours in Wikipedia,


Skreen (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear. The page you are looking for is linked from WP:CHU, it's Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. The instructions there should be easy enough to follow. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I have a very dirty toilet that needs cleaning, too, if you like --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the other refs at Lambert need some attention too. Perhaps this afternoon.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort

Happy old-ish hippy, yes! Sad? Not me! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead reports retracted

Dead reports retracted Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering, did you read the talkpage, or what? Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Gabrielle Giffords

Please cease editing the article Gabrielle Giffords while it is protected. Admin privileges are not for overriding edit protection. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So was I. I hadn't realised it had moved to full protection (which is overkill) but nevertheless, I will cease. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FLC

I thought I'd let you know if you haven't noticed already but it seems an editor has started up two nominations, I only noticed after I had left comments on the fresher of the two, he started List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame on January 4 and then proceeded on January 5 to add his second List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks. Afro (Talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry I've been away from FLC-related matters for a while. Anyway, there are a few nominations that need revisiting:

As usual, thanks for your hard work. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1936 Olympics

TRM, due to that dustup over the FLRC on the '36 Olympics list, I've started doing them somewhat differently (See the current FLC 1948 list). When I have three hours to devote to mind-numbing boredom, I'll go back and make '36 look like the '48, '52, and '56 ones. Courcelles 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hadrianos 1990 socks again

TRM, you gave Taro-Gabunia (talk · contribs) a final warning back in September, but the behavior continues-- several more ill-prepared nominations at once. I can't remember all the editors we've now blocked who were involved in Real Madrid C. F. and are clear Hadrianos socks and disrupting FAC-- can we get a list or sub-page somewhere so I can keep up with them? I had forgotten Taro was one of them, and he's disrupted FAC several times since you warned him back in September. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's been indef blocked, so until another sock arrives, we should be alright. If you do spot any more disruption, let me know again, I'll start investigations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FLC request for revisit

Thank you for sticking with my nomination of List of current sovereign monarchs. I know this notice is probably unnecessary, but the administrator has asked me to contact the reviewers to get them to make their final judgements. I think I've dealt with the issues that you recently presented. Please let me know if there is anything else I should consider. Thanks again, and best regards, Nightw 07:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the FLC, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What, you never joined?

Get in, my son --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FLC Request for Revisit

Hi. I know this notice is probably unnecessary, but a user has asked me to contact the reviewers to get them to make their final judgements. I think I've dealt with the issues that you recently presented. Please let me know if there is anything else I should consider. Thanks again, and best regards

I copy/pasted what the other user said :P --Neo139 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't knew you update it so fast !^^ --Neo139 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking advice

After hearing of his plight, and the planned scarf tribute to him, I decided to do my bit by expanding Neil Young (footballer born 1944). I've been pondering whether or not to add the material in the second paragraph of the Personal life section (particularly the suicide attempt), what with it being a BLP of someone currently going though difficult times. I deliberately waited until after it had been on the Main Page for DYK for this reason, but ultimately included it on the grounds that Young himself put it in his autobiography. So basically I'm looking for some feedback from a couple of editors whose opinions I hold in particularly high esteem. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Watching ITFC v AFC right now, 0-0 after 60 mins result (so far!). Will get back to you... Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Naturally. I'm amazed, nay, dismayed that you are on WP at the same time ;) Hamilton v Celtic on here, complete with cursing from my Celtic supporting flatmate. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1-0! Give me five minutes...!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Deletion discussion

No worries. It does seem I read the comment in a way you did not intend. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Resolute 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Bloc Party discography/archive1

hello,

please remove this nominations; all issues were solved. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll review it myself, and make the decision to remove it based on that. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

MOS guidance II

Just a quick update:

Italic text
the only mention of italic text in WP:Manual of Style (accessibility) is now in the 'Text' section and says:
  • "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline) or even semantic text attributes (emphasis, importance, text deletion) ..."
So from now on, we can suggest to nominators at FLC that italics is best avoided as a key. Our best work should be as accessible as possible, but I still feel it's too early to make this a requirement for FA/FL until editors have had some time to adjust to the demands of improving accessibility.
Links in section headers
I've made a case at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Section headers and links. Already Dodoïste has agreed fully, so I don't think we need wait too long before revising that section as well. As soon as that's done, I'll start the discussion to update WP:MOS#Section_headings to reflect the change.

Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update RexxS. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Russ Prize

Please withdraw it. I will merge all awards into the article National Academy of Engineering. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Just wondering why you have blocked me for changing the Maria Sharapova page...I havn't vandalised th epage at all! In fact you have kept one of my changes...so you know from what I have done that I'm not vandalising it!!! And if you check...Sharapova has infact taken a hiatus from Joyces coaching. And as for merging 2009 and 2010 together - seemed th good thing to do as the other years had been merged so I felt it looked sloppy!

Also I wanted to add that I was going to state that Sharapova is now using Head racquets.

IF YOU HAVE A LOOK AT DANIELA HANTUCHOVA'S PAGE YOU WILL SEE THAT I HAVE DONE THE SAME IN HELPING IT LOOK BETTER AND THAT I AM IN FACT NOT A VANDAL ON WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanSMARTAC (talkcontribs) 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

I didn't mean to offend you if I did in the nomination, my point was simply to clarify how proceedings have changed. Afro (Talk) 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, no offence taken at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

University Challenged

Go Peterhouse! My wife was surprised that women were admitted, though... BencherliteTalk 07:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeehaa. I think that happened in the 1970s, and they weren't the last, not quite, that was Magdalene, their boat crews were always packed with hot blonds! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Bah - To think I missed out on all that! --Catsman (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I was there and I missed out on it too! Although there was that one time, in Newnham..... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue and Ashlee Simpson discographies

Hi Rambling Man! First, I'd like to split Kylie Minogue discography into singles and albums discographies separately (earlier a consensus was reached). For that I guess existing redirects have to be cleared. Please help. Also, Ashlee Simpson discography.. I expanded the lead a bit. Please check it out. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 13:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers dude, meetings all day... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Verification of lists

Any thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verification_of_lists? Rd232 talk 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of Verta Taylor's page

Hello,

I'm a grad student at UCSB, where Professor Verta Taylor teaches, and I noticed that you deleted her Wikipedia page for reasons related to her not having sufficient prominence in / influence on her field. I would like to point out that she is one of the most famous scholars in the field of social movement studies and that she was recently awarded the John D. McCarthy Lifetime Achievement Award in the Scholarship of Social Movements and Collective Behavior. She was also awarded the Simon and Gagnon Award from the American Sociological Association. My source can be found here: http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1780

I respectfully submit to you that you restore her Wikipedia page, because for those of us in the know in academia, she is, indeed, a big deal.  :)

Thank you. 169.231.35.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

Ah, the article I deleted nearly four years ago? Well, feel free to recreate the page, but you must remember to ensure the article meets WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS, or else it will most likely be deleted again. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current sovereign monarchs/archive1

Hi TRM. I have restarted the above FLC because the consensus was unclear. Can you revisit it to ensure that all of your comments have been addressed, and if possible, declare whether you support, oppose, or are neutral towards the list's promotion to FL status? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Hello, my name is Stephen Jones. I am a student at James Madison University and I am currently in a class that is working on the Wikipedia Public Policy Project. I saw some of your interests and found that we share some in common, like Football (soccer) and music. I was wondering if you would like to be my mentor for this project? I would appreciate any help that you may be able to lend on this project and I look forward to hearing from you soon! Thanks!

Stephen Jones Jones3sg (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible

To get a deleted page back? I actually asked to delete one of my sandbox, after blanking it. Before blanking, I had added some information. Can I get them back somehow? After deletion, I added something else to the sandbox too (of different article). Novice7 | Talk 12:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let me know which page you want and I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. This is the page -> User:Novice7/Sandbox3. Novice7 | Talk 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sandbox3 is now restored. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Novice7 | Talk 16:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship logistics

I replied on my talk page: User_talk:Sross_(Public_Policy)#Request_for_mentorship. Please let me know what you think of the template I added to Jones3sg's userpage; something like that is, I think, what we're going to ask each mentor to add when they accept a mentorship request.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're getting a little flood of requests! If you'd like to not take on any more, you can move yourself entry on the mentors table down to the "addtional online ambassadors" section and remove the "choose as mentor" button.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw that, and yes, it's a mini-rush. I'll stop at five I think, so I'm nearly done. Then I'll "abscond" from the top table... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Five, great!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When should it be capitalicized and when not?

hello,

I am not a native speaker in english. In German, certifications should be capitalicized; how's in english? Please explain me; I am a little bit confused. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in German all nouns are capitalised, right? In English, I wouldn't capitalise platinum. However, as long as you are consistent in the article (e.g. all "platinum" or all "Platinum") then there's no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lord, I see you're a ramblin' man..Im trying to make a living and doing the best I can :)

Hey! My name's Nicole Guido (yes like the racial slur) and I'm a junior writing rhetoric and technical communications major at James Madison University. Wanna be my mentor? Just a fore-warning, I'm a little slow to understand things so I may ask you a bunch of questions, but on the flip side I have a sense of humor so hopefully ill throw some jokes your way to ease the pain of dealing with my puny brain :) Let me know !

peace, love, and shiny things,

Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidonm (talkcontribs) 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help you out, and jokes will help, no doubt at all! I'm a little slow myself, especially on your "racial slur" comment, I have no idea about that, but yes, if you're serious about a mentor, and would like me to help you out, that's cool with me! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Guido = Basically Italian-American chavs. Bit like Goombahs, although I tend to think of that term to mean the mob's thugs, and a bit older than Guidos. Think Jersey Shore's cast! :) So you signed up to be an Online Ambassador? I was thinking of doing the same until it came to answering some of the questionnaire answers! :/ Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Hey,

I'm new to the editing side of Wikipedia and am starting a project for my class at James Madison University. I am in need of a mentor and share several things in common with you (I'm very passionate about football/"soccer"), so I was hoping you could help me out with whatever questions I might have. I will begin this public policy project shortly and will contact you regarding it if you are available to help. You can oversee it at WP:USPP, click course and navigate down to the second James Madison and click "Professional and Technical Editing (Cindy Allen)". Thanks for your help. Cheers!

Burkeew (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You got me. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Many thanks; I'll be running again in a few months once I've ironed out some of the issues that people raised. Many thanks, GiantSnowman 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Blockie blockie

Little ducklings

In light of this, please see this. Apparently you're a little duck.

Good markup. Pity you don't use it constructively. As before, you'll be blocked and reverted wherever your IP goes. We can follow you, you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Rambling Man, I don't follow--the IP referred to you in their summary as a d*ck or something like that--can't see it now, since it's been RevDeleted. Oh, I see now: I forgot to sign. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah! No problem. I get it all now. Mistaken identity! I've got myself a delightful disgruntled Australian IP vandal who can't get over losing The Ashes! Thanks for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I shouldn't have been editing that late. Hey, I appreciate the mark-up compliment--it's entirely possible that I did learn something here. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian Owen

Hi there. I was about to write an article on the footballer Brian Owen, but noticed that an article at that title has been deleted a couple of times, first time around for notability reasons. Just wondering if either of them happened to be about the footballer, and if so, whether you would be willing to restore it? I can provide sources in advance if restoring would create a completely unsourced BLP. Regards, —WFC— 19:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the first one is about a physio, the second about an alleged NHL hall-of-famer. Create from scratch is my advice. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah okay. I'll create from scratch, but out of interest were there any worthwhile sources for the physio? It's just that the Watford player later became a physio for England, Palace, Colchester and some non-league team from Bedfordshire. Regards, —WFC— 19:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then that's definitely the first one. I'll recheck, but I don't recall anything useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, nothing. It was prod'ed the first time for having no verifiable notability, the only claims in the article (at that time) being physio at Col U and assistant to Ian Atkins at Cambridge Utd. No sources or anything else though. It also appears protected from recreation, so if you do have something suitable to create that won't be questioned, then give me a shout if you need a hand getting it up and running. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've drafted the article here. Haven't done the metadata because I believe there's a bot that removes such things from userspace, but otherwise it's good to go. —WFC— 20:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There's also a bot that removes categories from pages outside of mainspace, but you can avoid it by putting a colon before the word 'Category' ( [[:Category:Xxx]] ) until you get the article moved out of your userspace. HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discography FLRC

Hi Rambling Man. The Ashlee Simpson discography has been a FLRC since January 2. I've fixed many issues. Please check it out. Thank you. Novice7 | Talk 10:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Malmö FF

Hi! I noticed that you are on the list of volunteers for peer review regarding everyday life articles. I'm just asking if you would care to look at Malmö FF. I believe that the article is close to FA and I just need a second opinion. Would be very thankful for help! Here is the peer review link: Wikipedia:Peer review/Malmö FF/archive2.

Thanks!--Reckless182 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxford United records and statistics

Hi. Just to say the table sorting issue is now resolved and to ask are there any other things which you think need looking at? Hope the conference goes well. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN for 2011 Domodedovo International Airport bombing

--Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey bru

Howzit mate, I was just wondering if it would be possible for the history on my userpage to be taken off? There's a lot of personal information on there and I'd like to go "anonymous" again. Cheers, Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Best bet would be WP:OVERSIGHT for a thorough job. I guess we could talk about deleted revisions but that's something I'm not too familiar with. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
TRM, hope you don't mind, but I just threw the whole thing in the trash, and restored the last two "clean" revisions that have nothing personal. An oversighter could clean things from admins, too, but this makes it decidedly less public, and may be sufficient. Courcelles 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles, I don't mind at all. In fact I'm glad you could help out. It's been a while since I've done anything too clever with the admin tools. Cheers... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That was quick! Right, cheers guys. Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you missed my previous post

Hey, I posted this at your talk page before you archived, don't know if you missed it:

"Hi! I noticed that you are on the list of volunteers for peer review regarding everyday life articles. I'm just asking if you would care to look at Malmö FF. I believe that the article is close to FA and I just need a second opinion. Would be very thankful for help! Here is the peer review link: Wikipedia:Peer review/Malmö FF/archive2.

Thanks!"

--Reckless182 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Bloc Party discog

Actually completely forget about that. I'll have a wee gander in due course. Just thought I'd mention that I think of Laura Marling every time I see your username. :)  狐 FOX  15:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oxford United F.C. records and statistics/archive1

I feel this may be starting to wind down a little, so i'm going back to people who have commented. I have made all the changes you suggested, as well as everyone elses. Is there anything else that you feel needs doing? Eddie6705 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 15, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 15, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Bullard

Hi, you changed the infobox stats for Jimmy Bullard but the new figures do not line up with Soccerbase appearances for him. (Looks like Soccerbase has had a revamp!). Keith D (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I went with the stats on the ITFC page for him... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Had another look, seems like I have no idea how to add numbers up. My apologies. And yes, Soccerbase seems to have had a serious "upgrade"...! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User name change

Hello, can I have my user name changed from "User:TerrenceandPhillip" to "User:a7x"? Thanks, —Terrence and Phillip 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album

I am resisting all urges to jump in and rescue the FLC. Part of me wants to help and get the job done, but part of me thinks that nominators need to learn the process and put in the effort. If it fails, perhaps I will clean up the list and re-nominate it for FL status (I will contact Candy before doing so). --Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I don't expect you to take this on, by any means! Anyway, we'll see what happens once you talk to Candy! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Concerns have been addressed and I will try to drop and let other editors know about the review taking place. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing time D:!

hello,

please withdraw Santana discography, because one user have a "wikibreak" and the other possibly too. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(Looks around FLC at nothing in particular) Is it time to introduce a mandatory waiting period (subject to Director discretion) for new FLCs after the archiving of an unsuccessful nomination? WP:FLCISNOTPEERREVIEW is, at present, a red link, but is a very tempting essay title. BencherliteTalk 19:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
A la FAC? I wouldn't be opposed to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I haven't checked, but a recent nomination needed one HELLUVA lot of work. It needed peer review. It needed more than that. We don't necessarily need the essay but I see no reason for me, Dabomb (or Giants) or, worst case, any other experienced FLCer not to remove premature nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I know you'd be careful not to put off new nominators, but maybe a quick-fail checklist (like at GAN: WP:Reviewing_good_articles#First things to look for) might allow some nominators to see if they are a long way off, and spare them any stress. It wouldn't be a bad thing as a guide to help new/potential reviewers as well. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already suggested the nominator (in this particular case) looks at User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(Actually, could use your input in enhancing the accessibility section of that... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

keep up the good work

Ambassador Barnstar 117x111px.png Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar
For being a proactive and friendly mentor and giving students a great first impression of Wikipedia, I award The Rambling Man the Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot

Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions/archive1

All comments have been fixed.--WillC 05:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: World Music Album list and album title capitalization

Magiciandude wrote on my talk page that capitalization rules for Spanish album titles are different, and moved the La Mafia album page from "En Tus Manos" to "En tus manos" (even though All music as well as the actual album cover have each word capitalized). On the FLC page for the World Music list, Magiciandude asked that this concern be addressed. Do you have any feedback on this issue? I don't want to to move a bunch of album pages unless it is really the right thing to do. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't consider it an issue at all. And I'm not even convinced that guideline is correct. After all I would think that if the majority of verifiable sources capitalise an album a given way, that's what we use here, not some arbitrary ruleset. And Magiciandude is making a mess of Wikipedia with the page moves he's doing. La Paga was moved to La paga but eleven instances of the original title were left in the body of the article. Sloppy. I would advise you thank him but take no further action. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Hopefully the article moves can be reverted to their original titles. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I really hope so but I'd guess more than 150 articles have been moved... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I made a request on Magiciandude's talk page to correct the edits made to Grammy Award for Best Mexican/Mexican-American Album and to (hopefully) revert some of the pages that were moved. Frustrating... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lower-case titles for albums in Spanish

I think the message you left on my talk page is absolutely correct, but you probably should have sent it to Magiciandude, who is the one in favor of the lower-case titles. Chris the speller (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have left him a few messages (!) but he's chosen to ignore my first one, so I thought I'd leave one at your page too. Hope you don't mind too much...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries, Mate! Chris the speller (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have been updating the names on the articles themselves. Magiciandude (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that anywhere. But please focus the debate on the link I gave you. And thanks for contributing to the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, The problem is that a long time ago I have discussed it in the proper pages, but since my opinion was ignored, I decided to stop discussing and leave this project. When users weren't already able to give me rational objections against my verifiable sources, they just said "because it is not in English", and this is not a correct objection. I insist, if a title or any other text is in a foreign language, you can't apply English spelling rules for it, unless they have a translated English version, like in case of city names (obviously you won't write here "Ciudad de México" as an article title, but "Mexico City"), but, e.g. Tú y yo is a Spanish title, so it would be and is incorrect if you write it as "Tu Y Yo". I know that, unfortunately, titles are written incorrectly many times on the album covers themselves. Though, I think in this case it is recommendable using the correct forms that rules for Spanish spelling prescribe. Regards, --El Mexicano (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is you are ignoring WP:NAME, ignoring that this is English Wikipedia, and ignoring a host of common evidence like album and single covers. In English Wikipedia we rely on verifiable sources, not "truth, determined by some Spanish academic". All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thannks The Rambling Man, I feel much better! I'd like to think of it this way, if I had never done those moves, you might have not noticed the error with the guideline right away! Magiciandude (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Featured_sounds_proposal

FYI, Uncle TRM (for which, many congratulations) - this might have implications for FLs. I must admit I'm struggling to see why Featured Pictures need an extra box on the main page because of a backlog of over a year when we have nearly 2,000 lists that have never been on the main page, which would keep us going to the middle of 2016 even if we started tomorrow! BencherliteTalk 22:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ugly walrus face

Happy Wark day. --Dweller (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FS/FL

Honestly, I think Sven jumped the gun a bit; if anything, the FL connection is going to gain us votes, not lose us them. Still, the vote's started, so I have to run with this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(TPS:) More "strike while the iron is hot" perhaps, Adam? It's certain that while the issue is fresh with the FL regulars, they will see common cause and support the FS proposals. In case anyone forgets, btw, thank you very much for offering to code the changes – it's much appreciated. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FLC stuff

First, congratulations on the new addition in your family. :-) Simply put, I would love to be a director. I feel that I can do a capable job, and I have some experience from past stints as a fill-in. The one thing I ask is that any annoucement be posted on FLC talk in advance, to allow the FLC community to have the last word on a decision. The proposal looks really interesting, and I'll weigh in as soon as I can (am busy in real life at the moment). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FL on the main page

Just to note, you'll probably want to make up a few examples of how lists will be summarised on the main page. A lot of people have questioned that, and b being a bit proactive there, you can really silence your critics.

I'd personally suggest that there should probably be three types of main-page list summaries:

1. The basic, quote-the-opening paragraphs list. Example List of bridges to the Island of Montreal, which has a surprisingly engaging opening.

2. The "Selection of interesting facts" type. This comes in two flavours:

  • Some lists don't summarise well, but the details are rather engaging. For example, List_of_unmade_Doctor_Who_serials_and_films might quote some of the opening, but I'd then switch to some actual details from the body.
  • Other lists have more engaging material elsewhere in a long summary. For example, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards starts off rather dry, but moves on to detail many amusing events at the awards, such as Uwe Boll's speech.

3. Summarising several lists. Some lists are short, and probably won't stand up on their own very well, but a DYK-style bulletpointed list which quotes several such lists may allow them to have an appearance, albeit an appropriately small one, on the main page. Example: List_of_New_York_Giants_head_coaches. Alternatively, perhaps these shouldn't appear on the main page, and the project should be split into Featured lists and Good lists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FL probably needs to stay adaptable, as its remit is one of the widest for a featured project, ranging from things that are very nearly featured articles to things that are simply well-referenced short collections of encyclopedic information. Showing you have a plan may help. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Definitely worth mentioning you'll be cherry-picking in your proposal, then. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the very first list you mention is (a) one of mine and (b) an Oxford list? I'm tempted to block you immediately as this account has obviously been compromised... BencherliteTalk 09:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting soft. Plus I knew I could reliably threaten you into ensuring it's in tip-top condition...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What do I need to do, ACCESS-wise, to comply with modern hoops requirements? I seem to remember reading something about having to add "!periscope=up" at the start of every fifth row that doesn't begin with a capital Z, but as I'm not working on FLCs at the moment (I've abandoned you for the giddy pleasures of WP:GAN) I've rather lost track. BencherliteTalk 11:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Periscopes added, dude. Laterz. BencherliteTalk 15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

FL proposal

I think it would be best to wait for the FS proposal to close, simply because the FL proposal depends on it for the backend, and in the (hopefully unlikely) event that it fails, the FL proposal needs to be rethought. It's going to take a little bit for me to get the coding together anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn FLC

TRM, see the comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Modern Family (season 1)/archive1, I'm fairly sure that can eb taken as a withdrawal. Courcelles 18:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Done deal. Thanks for the notification. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, have your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Armillaria species/archive1 been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dabomb, I'm not going to support that list, for reasons best left unspoken, but I certainly won't oppose it, I had struck my oppose a few days ago so go with the consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Qué será de ti (Como vai você)

Hi, because these are two titles: Qué será de ti (in English: 'What can the matter be with you') is in Spanish, and the original title is Como vai você ('How are you [doing]') is in Portuguese, since it's a cover of a Brazilian song. --El Mexicano (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Qué" means 'What' (from Latin quid, from Proto-Indo-European *kwis) and "cómo" (from Latin quómodo) means 'how'.
The correct form is Primera fila ('[In the] First Row'). --El Mexicano (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, but these are in English. Are they correct in English that way you say? --El Mexicano (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I got it. I plan to correct all Thalía-related music articles as far as I have time, and of course if our discussion is solved, since I don't want to do work in vain. --El Mexicano (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RE:Main page

Letter from the viceroy of Portuguese India.gif

Thanks. I think this is a double-edged sword; we have to keep the momentum going, but have to be equally sure that we have everything covered before opening it up to a vote. I'll do my best to do my bit in getting the first drafts of the blurbs done today. Tomorrow and Monday I think the target should be polishing them off, and making sure that all the lists are up to 2011 FL standards.

Not hopeful today. They've got Jobi McAnuff, a winger who is usually world class against former clubs. We don't have our class winger (Will Buckley), and of our three full backs (all right footed), one's injured, one's out of form by his own admission, and the other is a very young international who has so far started one game of men's football. —WFC— 14:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I've marked it as unfinished, just in case someone sees it and thinks we're presenting that as an example of our best work. By the way, I think we should use one of User:Bamse's lists in the initial sample. Those treasures lists are fantastic, and we'll get one heck of a picture. —WFC— 14:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We've already got two building-related lists so far, so I'd probably go for List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents). —WFC— 14:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Admittedly some of the longer lists lend themselves better to illustration, but the one to the right is as good as any I've seen. —WFC— 14:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I stumbled accidentally over this discussion (recognized the image :-) ). I'd like to create a blurb of List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) for User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates but am not sure on how to do it. Should it be a copy-paste of the lead section of the list? Are there any limitations concerning the length of the blurb (min/max)? bamse (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Re the Watford list: I've been banging on about being sure that the selection is well balanced- it'd be hypocritical for me to then proceed to add the Watford blurb IMO. If you think those concerns are over the top, I'm happy for it to be copied over from here. Regards, —WFC— 02:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Video games blurb for FL mainpage inclusion

I'd love to put up a video games blurb, TRM. I was a little hesitant on putting video games up on a pedestal so soon because of the complaints video game FAs tend to get as they come up as the TFA, but you're definitely right, there's no reason to sweep our work under a rug. I'll get working on a blurb– I may end up not posting one of mine, but either way it'll be a video game list. Thanks for the note, and I really hope this proposal works out. Not going to lie, I'm pretty pumped about it right now. Nomader (Talk) 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Ashes series

Hey, I've attacked List of Ashes series, and hopefully cleaned it up and set it on its way to becoming a Featured List once again. I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ashes series/archive1, and was hoping for your input. It's been a bit quiet on the FL side of things for cricket, but I've got a few things that I'm working on to get it going again! Harrias talk 00:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FLC

Thank you! I promise everyone that I will do the best job as a director that I possibly can. Later today, I'll see if I can weigh in on the Main Page efforts in some way. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals

Hey!, a few weeks ago you posted some errors with the above article and we left off waiting for a consensus. Since nobody has added any other suggestions have you made a decision if you want to support or oppose to nomination for FL? If you have it would be greatly appreciated =D.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FL poll

The Featured sounds poll closes tomorrow at at around 20:00 UTC, and I think it can be considered a complete success. FL depends on it, but if you start yours sometime tomorrow, and just mention it's obviously passing, I'm fairly sure noone will object if it hasn't been "officially" closed at that point.

If you give me a heads up, I'll mention that I'm fine with this idea, and say that it'd be a very simple addition to the code. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if the day after tomorrow is easier, it'll probably work just as well. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FL proposal

I've noted one bit of language that should change, and copyedted some other bits, but I'd seriously consider trying to make this much, much shorter, two paragraphs or so. It's rather rambling, and this prevents the core proposal - which is, after all, no more complicated than "Change PPPPPSS to PPLPPSS" - from being easily understood. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting a day or so. The proposal's wording is good, and the blurbs are excellent. But we need knuckle down and polish the lists off a little. For instance, List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries had four deadlinks when I first turned to it, and still has one unsourced paragraph. All easily fixed with the assistance of Google (other search engines are available), but it'd look very bad if that sort of thing wasn't dealt with in advance. —WFC— 13:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Either way sounds good. I'm working on the access element of Rawlings Gold Glove Award at the moment. Most issues with most lists seem pretty easily resolved. For instance, Dickin Medal has two dead links and one uncited paragraph. The only issues I've come across so far that I don't think I could deal with are on the Oregon Stream list: there's a pretty obscure dead link, and for some reason I can't find the DAB that is apparently there. —WFC— 14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

Symbol support vote.svg

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

I am sorry that it has taken me this long to get back to you. My topic in the WP:PP Course is [Civil Rights of Incarcerated Persons Act] and I have just started to work on adding information up there. I promise to do a better job of keeping in contact and I hope that you will check my page periodically and see what work I have been doing. Hope all is well, talk to you soon! Stephen G. Jones Jones3sg (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry my page is Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act Jones3sg (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Treble Clef Barnstar.png The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.

It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.

Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.)

Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future.
Sven Manguard Wha?
Adam Cuerden (talk)
(X! · talk)

Oregon streams

Just a note about List of longest streams of Oregon, User:Finetooth has expressed concerns about the changes both you and User:RexxS made to it at the list's talk page. I figure as you guys were the ones who made the changes, you'd be better able to explain the reasoning behind them. Cheers, and great work on all of this! Nomader (Talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. After getting your note, I looked at the page on three different screens with different settings. The single-line gallery looks fine on all three, except that the Umpqua River caption appears with a vertical slider (terminology?) on one screen. (I think I can fix this by shortening the caption.) I understand the bit about the alt text for the dagger; that's a good change and not something I would have thought of or would have known how to do. I must read WP:ACCESS again, carefully. I have never seen the "scope" parameters before and have no idea how they work or why. The ref-note squashing occurs on two of the three screens I'm checking. (Sorry, I don't know what the settings are; they are just set for the ease of whoever works on them all the time.) In the "Columbia River" row, "Total length" column, it takes the form of 1,249 mi in line 1, 2,010 km dagger in line 2, and [7][n 1] in line 3. Since this only happens on one of three screens, I guess it's OK. I understand that it may be impossible to create layouts that look wonderful on every possible screen in every possible configuration. I appreciate your prompt response and your reversion of the most shocking (to me) changes. I'll do some studying of WP:ACCESS and the scope business to try to get up to speed on these. If I get stuck, I may ask you a further question or two (later, when things are not so hectic). Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
All is becoming more clear. I understand, now, the functions of "scope" and the dagger template, and I have added them to another list I'm working on. Finetooth (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's now moved from its long life in a sandbox to main space as List of longest main-stem rivers in the United States. The scope and dagger adds were pretty much the finishing touches. Thanks for teaching me about these. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page

I wouldn't worry too much about the two opposes at the moment mate. Sandy and Raul are right in principle; it can be assumed that there is overwhelming consensus for FLs on the main page, but the layout is a matter for debate. They're wrong to oppose on those grounds, given that they know there will need to be an implementation-focussed discussion later, but it's a minor issue in the scheme of things. In the event that we fail at the first hurdle (which I think is unlikely), we simply do a 2x3+1 mockup, consult with the opposers, and come straight back once we have their broad approval. In practise, I think we will pass the proposal at this stage, and will then need to do a 2x3+1 mockup, before the community decides which layout to go for. Same difference really.

I'll chat to you again tomorrow. —WFC— 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that Raul can show up and say he didn't read the original FS proposal well enough, then supported it. I know we're all human, but the FS proposal had, what, 60 or 70 supporters? The proposal FS put forward wasn't a "do we want FS on the main page" principle discussion, it was the whole shooting match. That flew through. Now FLs are there, we suddenly have technical issues, despite our technical proposal being identical to the FS one. And Raul can't even be arsed to say sorry, I messed up, and what a pity you guys spent so much time and effort working on this for the past week. Wikibreak calls soon, methinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You messed up? Pssh, none of us "messed up", TRM. We've put forward a fantastic proposal and there's obviously large consensus for at the very least for FLs to be featured on the main page. The only thing being argued over is minor stylistic details (well not necessarily minor, but...). Either way, whatever happens, FLs will most likely be featured on the main page. Maybe not in the way we originally envisioned it, but that's fine by me. I'm excited, whether it's a 2x3+1 (not really sure what that means, to be honest), or what we have proposed now. In the end this wasn't time wasted and I'm happy I could've helped get us this far. As for Raul, that's life I guess. I'm just happy he brought it up now instead of a month from now right before we'd be about to go up live on the main page. Nomader (Talk) 19:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thing is, it's not his main page. If he wants to suddenly propose a counter-proposal against the one already accepted by the community, that's fine, but no need to start calling other layouts "very stupid". I'm glad we're on the first steps to the right solution, but for us to work so hard just to be told "oh, didn't read that, oppose" by Raul is a total insult. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I was actually a bit more downtrodden by SandyGeorgia's "my !vote can be considered the same as his [Raul's]", but they were both pretty disheartening. Either way though, it was a misunderstanding of the worst kind and I'm sure they meant well. But if anything we're getting a better deal out of all of this if his proposal goes through. Instead of "FL Wednesdays" we get seven days a week of featured lists in a dedicated space. I know you were participating in the conversation on Raul's talk page which was pretty depressing, but his 2x3+1 idea or whatever is actually pretty smart and it's definitely worth revisiting the conversation there. Nomader (Talk) 19:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Seven days a week is fine, but, like FS, we're finding our feet, so one a week is a good starting point. We have, forever, been considered FAs poorer cousin. Our proposal was designed to guarantee that whatever list went onto main-page was perfect (well, as near as damn it), and that would be a great starting point. As I said in the initial proposal title, we need to learn to "walk first, run later". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... why don't we start with a week long trial? It would end at a proposed end-date (unlike a certain other trial), and we can assess how we handled it. Part of me is afraid that if we don't start by doing it everyday, we'll never actually reach that point. We can make the lists for the first couple weeks based from the mock-ups we've written for the main page already, and while we're updating from those, we can begin to accept nominations and suggestions for the later dates, thus keeping ahead of the curve and allowing us to improve lists that are about to go up on the main page. It's risky but... I guess I'm just an ambitious person. I see your reservations though. Nomader (Talk) 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
We (the FL community) don't want to blow our chances. Once a week was a perfect platform. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, touche TRM. Nomader (Talk) 20:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yea, well, let's talk about "And Raul can't even be arsed to say sorry ...". He worked his arse off to begin with to get FLs, FPs, FSs on TFA for the anniversary, and you beat the crap out of him then. [7] You repay his hard work and effort to get other featured content on the mainpage by alleging ownership, and completely refusing to acknowledge his design concerns. Then he overlooks one commentary, and I make a mistake because I wasn't following the discussion, and we BOTH get beaten up on his talk.

Someone is a bit too sensitive here about being "FAs little sister" no matter how much reassurance, so I don't see the point in wasting my words anymore. "It was gratifying to see the whole community shaking the tired main page design and FA-rules approach up a bit." Um, Raul was the first person to shake that up, on the tenth anniversary. The reason all those processes even have a chance at being considered for the main page is most likely directly due to Raul's hard work back during the anniversary, and for you and Bencherlite to come after me because I didn't get involved in the discussions or follow them closely, and made a mistake, and then basically fail to AGF with me, when I was very clearly defending FL really stinks.

Have you forgotten that you, too, made a big mistake back during the anniversary in overlooking an important post about the anniversary, and Raul didn't demand apologies or hold it against you? So, putting aside that I'm not particularly pleased right now, there is still a problem to be solved. Let's see who solves it, 'cuz I'm done.

Raul hasn't said he's sorry? How about TRM hasn't said thank you. It's clear to me that Raul was trying to help get more exposure for all processes, and FL in general by giving them seven days, as was I when I thought you would be sharing FA space at the top of the mainpage. But if you think FLC is not ready, even when outside observers do, it appears that efforts to help you are misplaced, and my AGF Pollyanna took over my good senses once again. If there is an ownership problem here, it's sure not coming from Raul; it's coming from a process that wants to stand above other processes, have their cake and eat it too, ignore independent outside commenters who think the process is mainpage ready, and fail to best serve our readers of the mainpage out of selfish interest and fear of putting <gasp> a mistake on the main page and being criticized.

Look in the ownership mirror; the mainpage is for our readers, not to feed the insecurities of one process above the interest of our readers. Insinuations about "FA rules" and "FAs little sister" are unnecessarily divisive, and lashing out at those who have long supported you in principle, because we disagree on implementation details, was ungrateful. I'm beginning to wonder if there's something in the Aussie culture I don't understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see why TRM's upset, to be honest. The FS proposal passed with flying colors and there seemed to be large consensus to implement the suggested design changes. We were really surprised that it got support, and we realized that there was actually a chance to have our content featured on the main page. I think a lot of the FL project merely assumed (wrongly) that our proposal would also pass through easily as it was based on the particulars of the FS proposal, only to find that Raul and some other editors missed some of the details of the original proposal and felt they should oppose. It was... kind of disheartening, to be honest. I was really pumped to finally get lists featured on the main page as soon as possible, and it felt like running into some kind of roadblock that I didn't expect to even be on the road. All that said, I'll be the first to say that we've appreciated the support both you and Raul have offered us in helping draft this proposal, and I completely understand where your constructive criticism is coming from and why you feel that the anger some FL editors have displayed is rather unfounded. I hope that you decide to stay active in the discussion on the main page (hoping that by tomorrow, cooler heads will prevail); I would love nothing more than for FL to finally be exposed to a larger audience, and having your assistance in finding a solution to our problem would be... well, swell, actually. I'm sorry about all this back and forth nonsense, and I beg you to help us draft solutions, as frustrating as it has already been. We could always use one more set of well-trained eyes. Nomader (Talk) 08:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I for one don't care about Sounds, but I do care about Lists, and that is the only reason I didn't read the Sounds proposal closely. For Sounds to be stuck on to the bottom of the page is fine: for Lists to be compromised is not. And I don't appreciate reading FA bashing at WT:FLC, in a discussion that is left there all day, but then closed off once I challenge it. I can't stay active-- I will be traveling-- the only reason I've left my Oppose on the page is so that others will understand that my design concerns are the same as Raul's and will know how to interpret my !vote in my absence, and so that newcomers to the discussion will understand that the principle is different than the implementation. FL will make it on the mainpage (it would be total nonsense to add Sounds and not Lists), and the concerns that it is not ready are misplaced-- it is far more ready than Sounds-- a sloppy implementation will not benefit Lists. I'm more upset at TRM on a general cultural issue, having been lashed out at by Aussies I considered as friends one time too many, but I'll explore that with him after FLs are implemented on the mainpage so as not to complicate the discussion further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy, much obliged for the considerate response. Hopefully we'll all have taken a chill pill by tomorrow and I hope you have a good trip. Nomader (Talk) 08:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you, too-- I'm not leaving yet, just won't be around for the end of the thing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pattern

I think there is a pattern here (and I'm new and impartial, if anything I like watching Sandy):

1. Raul runs a list without talking to the FL directors to get their selection or even let them know (imagine how FA crew would feel if Wikimedia foundation grabbed a random 2006 FA and didn't tell them for some "very best of Wikipedia brochure" or the like). Oh...and there WERE some flaws with that list, that the FL types are keyed up to find and that Raul and Sandy are not, thus showing why things should run through these guys not Raul.

Untrue. If you're going to interfere in a problem between TRM and me, get your facts straight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
See here: [8]. Raul notified the FLC group a couple days before running, did not get response back from the directors, and just ran. And TRM found out when it was running on the main page and there was an issue with the article. This does not meet my expectation of prior discussion and involvement and instead is part of the numbered pattern of assumption that FL is FA's little brother. Raul should have involved them and made sure, rather than that fast power move. TCO (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Sandy assumes that they need to run through Raul and makes a bunch of comments in that vein (not bothering to read the discussions).

Untrue again. Sandy asked if they were planning to use FA space. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Here is the relevant discussion: [9]. Your initial remarks were NOT to ask a question, but to make comments reflecting an assumption that things would go through TFA, including this lovely, "I will oppose inclusion of Featured Lists if they circumvent entirely Raul's competent management of the mainpage." Now, my point is not that you're bad for having made a mistake, but for not reading up on the proposal and that your assumptions reflect a mindset. Interestingly, the next sentence after my quote is a complaint about diversion of resources from FA. (And you do say, it's not FL's fault, but then what relevance has it? And surely FA should be attracting people, not complaining about dwindling.)TCO (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Sandy says she will vote how Raul votes.

True, on design matters-- we both support FLs on main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Very lukewarm support. Given that if you have to choose between their current pilot plan, with the design they have coded, and the status quo (no lists), you choose "no lists". Give those two options, you prefer no lists. That's not much support, Sandy. Actually it smells more like a spanner thrown in to stop or delay change. See this dynamic all the time in the work world.TCO (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Sandy opposes a significant improvement in content over a design issue

4.1 (one which has no legs by the way, FP has ALL kinds of space down there, and a three year backlog of pics, and the backlog is impacting current FP judging).

Your opinion that is has no legs, other disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Pretty few actually. Oh...and looking at the FP, it sits centered in this wide box, it's just crying out for dividing in two. Which of course is why everyone else looking at this problem from the FS perspective decided to cut it in half, to support added featured content.TCO (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Raul and Sandy never bothered to care about the vaunted Front Page design when sounds were going in, but with lists, they are all over it. Yeah...right.

So what? We apparently didn't read the FS proposal thoroughly, and that changes ... what ? How is after-the-fact finger pointing helpful at this point?
On it's own, it means little. As part of a numbered pattern, it's one more data point. Also, I think it's interesting, that you showed little scrutiny on sounds, but a lot on lists. It makes me wonder how important main page layout really is, to you all. TCO (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Sandy says they should have a TFA nomination structure, when they already discussed that and want to start simple. (And why ape TFA anyhow...maybe they evolve some ideas that are BETTER than FA/TFA and permeate backwards.)

Wrong again, corrected when I realized they weren't planning to share FA space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's true that you made the remark and then were corrected. All a part of the making assumptions that they would fit in under Raul, not reading their previous deliberations, and coming out with strong statements too early.TCO (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Sandy wants to say how many lists they should run, when she is not the one doing the work, when it is a pilot, and when they have had a long discussion on it (that she does not reference or seem to have read).

Sandy says Lists are ready for full mainpage exposure. You are free to disagree if you think they have problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Given Sandy is not the one doing the work, given they had a big multiparty discussion on it (which Sandy did not seem to have read, or if she had, she didn't address), and given that it's a PILOT, I think we should discount Sandy's view.TCO (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

8. And then earlier the comment about FL directorship "draining resources" from FA ("not complaining", but then why mention it, and why use that wording? Sure seems to fit the pattern.) [10]

And now the hurt feelings. I ain't buying it. This whole Internet site is soooo clubby.TCO (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Buy what you want, but bugger off if you're here to complicate matters with incorrect facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the content of the above is entirely wrong, but large parts of it are, and the tone is over the top. There's no need to personalise this. We all agree that lists should go on the main page. We all agree that the designs and timings being presented should not be considered concrete. We disagree on whether the design decision should be finalised before or after the present discussion. It's a minor point, live and let live. —WFC— 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have long considered TRM a friend, and was quite upset yesterday at the charges being flung at Raul and me, and I'll thank intermeddlers to not complicate the situation further by sticking their nose in with incorrect facts. I think TRM and I are quite capable of getting beyond this, and to avoid interficious intermeddlers, we will probably proceed to work this out via e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy that you'll work it out with TRM, so I'll step away now. As a parting gift, I'll leave you some demo main pages to play with - this is a wiki and anyone can edit them! If you look hard, all of the building blocks (transclusions) to make the demo in whatever shape you wish are there:
I'm more than a little upset over the treatment of a wiki-friend whose contributions I respect hugely, so I may be out of the loop while I think about it. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all upset about the way this has evolved, particularly in my case the bad faith allegations about "FA people" in spite of good faith efforts and support to get FLs on the mainpage, but with a brief peek back in to the discussion, I see the discussion is now evolving to a more rational look at the entire thing, and I appreciate your and WFC's efforts. We did get a bit heated, huh? I apologize to you for my "malarkey"-isms. Now, TRM, get your arse back in here and enjoy your moment. FLs will go on the mainpage (that was always a foregone conclusion), and if you aren't in there, we'll continue to see TCO's efforts to either demonstrate that he can thoroughly distort a discussion, spread untrue stories, stir the pot unnecessarily, or that he's generally obtuse-- whichever he's after, he succeeded, and I'm sure his mother would be proud. But we need your rational input to what is now looking like a more focused discussion of how to present worthy mainpage content to our readers, and you have long nursed FLC to the successful place it deserves on the mainpage. I will find time today to thoroughly read the discussion and cap my previous commentary to replace it with something that hopefully even the obtuse will be able to understand. Stop stirring the pot, TCO, and if you're just here to extend bad feelings, again-- go play in another playground. You'll find that accusing good-faith editors of being "dishonest" may not bode well for your future endeavors on Wikipedia: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I called myself dishonest, Sandy (and ironically, following you). Kudos for reaching out to TRM. I will stop debating.TCO (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, my apologies-- struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Rambling Man! --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Rambling Man, thanks for all the advice on my article. I'll be adding in a paragraph or two more within the next week so I'd really appreciate more feedback if you see anything else that should be fixed. Thanks again! Meckese (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

question

I do have one question/problem. I think the reason you can't see the URL that I've posted is because I'm going through databases at JMU to get to scholarly articles that are PDFs I think you might have to pay for service to the sites? Should I just cite them as journal articles rather than online articles? I don't know how to get around linking the articles. Meckese (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

question

I am working on the Wikipedia Project on Food Policy and I had added a picture for the first thing. I thought I had it sourced and cited correctly and then someone deleted it without even asking or seeing if it was sourced. I asked the person, Skier Dude is the user name, why it was deleted and saw that this person has a history of deleting pictures even if they have permission to add them. Could you help me with the picture deleting issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberly wymer (talkcontribs) 21:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One a day

I'm with you (and I think sounds are even less able than we are). My view is that the best way to make that case is to let the current proposal run its course, and in the meantime create genuine, good-looking examples of all the major proposed layouts. When we get around to proposing the pros and cons of each, I believe that argument will win the day. In the event that all-or-nothing does become the prevalant attitude, I reckon it's either nothing, or making a 1,000 word blurb part of the FLC process. —WFC— 10:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I should stress though, the latter idea would very much be a nuclear option. —WFC— 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
While I'm here, do you remember any of your dealings with User:Retepretep (talk | contribs)? As far as I can ascertain there's a similar pattern today, and the talk page history hardly fills me with confidence. —WFC— 10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess there is that implication. Although surely regardless of how frequently lists are on the main page, they will be listed as "today's"? In any case, I've outlined my thoughts in more depth here. —WFC— 11:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)