User talk:The Rambling Man

Have members of Arbcom stopped abusing their position?

Arb board

...NOTFORUM. That's really all, TRM. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies so you want me to start a new thread about the abusive Arb rather than tag on to that one? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped beating my wife, thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But have members of Arbcom stopped abusing their position? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich Town

Now we're getting somewhere, this should be centralised and not specific to one club's page. Please continue this discussion at WT:FOOTY. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

You seem to be serving your own agenda here. I have quite clearly shown you that a debate was had on the project page about friendlies being honours where all but one editor agreed they arent honours. This follows another debate had (stored in the archives) about two weeks prior where the same conclusion was reached amidst a greater number of editors debating. You then removed when I attributed status labels to some tournaments after on the basis of "we dont do that" when it is quite clear "we" dont list friendlies as honours anywhere across the project. So you are being nothing but hypocritical the whole way through. Perhaps we should just take this to the project, and let a consensus form once again. Davefelmer (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you failed to show me the RFC which backed your position. You failed to explain why you're editing against the consensus still demonstrated at the project style pages. If you launch an appropriate RFC and involve the whole community, and cover all aspects, I'll be happy to participate in it and abide by the formalised results. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if I did have an agenda, it would be to create complete articles which are well written, compliant with style guides, which the community agree are good enough to be featured. I don't know what your "agenda" is, nor do I want to know, but without formal RFC, you should not be claiming any rights to conduct your ongoing edits with complete community backing, because that's simply untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do you need an RFC for every change? And what consensus are you referring to? The only one I can see is the literal one presented on any other honours page where friendlies arent listed, and which is backed by multiple recent debates on wiki football where the subject was brought up and every editor except one said friendlies werent honours, a position further backed by clubs themselves on their own websites. That should be consensus enough, but if not then we can take it to the project page for feedback. Or why not make note of the statuses of the competitions as I did (or in a different way if preferable) as a middle ground of sorts since we are clearly in disagreement? Davefelmer (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making sweeping changes across project-related pages under some claim of "community consensus" to do so, yet I don't see it, anywhere. So file your RFC and we'll go with the results. In the meantime, the article is perfectly cromulent as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've worked on a number of football club honours pages and the consensus on each one has always been that friendlies aren't honours. I've frequently seen fans of said teams add that they reckon it'd be embarrassing to claim them as such. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's easy for a Norwich fan, that trophy cabinet is still looking a bit bleak...! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how empty, I wouldn't want my club demeaned by claiming nonsense wins against a People Who Own Sheepdogs XI for the Chum Cup as an "honour" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job you don't have a choice! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is not the only way to gain community consensus. You are being deliberately obtuse because you want to keep your club's page the way it is. There is consensus evident through the standard adhered to across virtually all other club articles, as well as by said clubs' official websites. There have been multiple discussions in recent times on the subject over on the project talk page, where each time around 6-7 editors agreed friendlies arent honours and the same one each time argued they should be. That is quite clearly a consensus. Even here you have another editor telling you the same thing but you simply refuse to believe it. Davefelmer (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not obtuse at all, I know exactly what you're up to and I'm not the only one. Once the Wikiproject Football guidelines and style guides have been updated following community consensus, I'll be happy to comply, in the meantime I'll leave it as is because it was agreed at WP:FAC. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you on about, knowing exactly what I'm up to? Nothing, as it happens. How many times and how many different editors do you need to see the same information from to see that you are in the wrong here? Davefelmer (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything wrong. Change the guidelines at the Football project and the Football style guide, and I'll comply. Until then, it's just fine, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link this football style guide? Davefelmer (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the project pages, I'm off to work. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs. Now where does this correlate with what you are saying? Let me know when you get the chance.

Im off to bed. Davefelmer (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, where does it correlate with what you're saying? Now you're on the right path, I suggest you centralise this discussion at the football project to gain a clear and demonstrable consensus either way. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

2017 America's Cup

Hate / don't really understand ITN, but this ought to be on it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thus nominated (it's an ITNR item meaning your instincts are correct, it should be on it). Feel free to !vote on its quality at WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop along. I'm guessing the reams of unsourced commentary of each day is problematic, but for me it's problematic anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page contains a lie.

Ramsey? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we needed to complete the job and get it from GA to FA didn't we? I think Cliftonian had some more ideas but not much time? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't have the time, guys, I'm really sorry as I did so want to continue with this. I'm doing 12 or 13 hours a day just at work, so it isn't going to happen if you wait for me. I say go ahead—if I am able to pitch in at all, I'll do my best... Sorry for holding you up. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2017 America's Cup

On 28 June 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 America's Cup, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

[1]

DYK for Frank Worrell Trophy

On 1 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frank Worrell Trophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australia have held the Frank Worrell Trophy since 1995? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Worrell Trophy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Frank Worrell Trophy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAs running more than once!

Did you know about this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll run and run...

Hello old friend! I was fondly marvelling at your boat race graft the other day and wondered if you'd like to help me write some London Marsthon articles....do you know of any good resources (other than the usual suspects!) No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have a very helpful Wikipedia colleague who can send us printed press for each year's build-up, coverage and results. We'd have to be nice to him, but I'm sure, given the subject matter, he'd be keen to help. Do you have a particular "edition" of the marathon you'd like to start with, perhaps to create a template of excellence which all the others can be based on? If so, let me know and I'll ask my colleague what he could do for us, and we'll go from there? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2003 might be good as Radcliffe set her record that year...I was intially quite hesitant after browsing several running forums and seeing that no one seems to have centrally kept historic records! It's up to Wiki to save the day :) No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Trans-Tasman Trophy

On 4 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trans-Tasman Trophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the New Zealand cricketer Richard Hadlee was twice the man of the series in the Trans-Tasman Trophy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trans-Tasman Trophy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Trans-Tasman Trophy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for deletion

Do you know how to convert this page you tagged into a functioning editnotice page as this does not work? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating IBAN with George Ho at Talk:2017 (such as these sections (1, 2) and the thread George Ho started regarding WP:VOTE), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I get it. He stalks my edits, completely infiltrates any discussions I might be having, and we get dealt equal blocks. Once again Arbcom, you're demonstrating that you have no clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Callanecc, I did email Arbcom about this very matter, so please don't suggest I should have done it when I actually did do it. If you want to hand out advice, please at least make yourself aware of the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for whatever it's worth, I've spent the last year studious avoiding any area that the other party edits, only to see this sudden flurry of edits placed in and amongst a number of ongoing discussions that I was having. How odd. Suggesting that I could not participate in those RFCs is patently absurd and completely unfair. Game playing at its worst. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) TRM, yes you did email ArbCom (which is why I started looking into this). However, you emailed ArbCom after you had already voted on GH's proposals and directly commented on him (i.e. after the IBAN breach). What I said you should have done is, as soon as GH became involved in a discussion/article you were already involved with and made it impossible for you to be involved in the RfC (i.e. before you were to breach the IBAN), is report it to AE/uninvolved admin and wait, rather than wait until you had already breached the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. So I can be deeply involved in discussions relating to these topics only for the other party to finally launch RFCs in which I can't participate? Game playing. And why the sudden interest in the areas where I was editing? But I can see this is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing on this Callanecc. If nothing else, the other party did not infringe the IBAN, per the instructions, yet gamed the system. I asked you (all) to be sensitive in handling this situation with particular regard to any repercussions of any punitive action against him in my email. This needs more detail in the IBAN log than is currently there, as it doesn't tell the big picture, the one I emailed Arbcom about. Of course, you all know best as usual. Let's hope nothing gets out of control following this punitive action (which would have been far better solved with a discussion rather than a 12-hour old punitive block, bravo once again Arbcom, just like those rogue admins you protect so ardently.) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

Howcheng, tomorrow's "Lod airport massacre" should be "Lod Airport massacre" The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Vanamonde. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, in Prep 4, you added this but the second of the target articles (Hālaliʻi Lake) is a redirect, so either pipe it or link directly to the article in question (Halalii Lake). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, currently on the main page, "Marinids" is still piped to a redirect... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though Bencherlite had something to say about it on ERRORS, so pinging them. Vanamonde (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primergrey you do realise your error report is not displayed correctly ERRORS, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I probably don't realize it, because I don't know what you mean. Primergrey (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you got to WP:ERRORS, do you see your error report? I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack and lies by admin

Since TRM "poisoned" the discussion by introducing misstatements about Wikipedia policies and guidelines I think it would be better to wait for an uninvolved admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Portsmouth F.C. needs help. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Walliams too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtaposition

The desperate rush to post anything Trump-related and MOAB, and the desperate rush to deny ICBMs from North Korea and the real threat to the "homeland". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Developing

Active

Inactive

Drmies (talk · contribs) ‡ &&
Euryalus (talk · contribs) ‡ OSM
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) ‡ &&

‡ – accessible notation (NBTD) && inactive query OSM oversight query

Recent years debacle

Snow Rise yes, I think if you'd be prepared to at least formulate a discussion at VPP to re-affirm (or otherwise) the status of the RY "guideline", that would be a good start. I think the fact that so few people have previously been involved in the project has meant it's flown below the radar and now it's getting scrutiny, claiming the project rules to be on a par with WIkipedia guidelines needs attention. From there we have many more things to do, but that's a great starting point if you're ok doing it? (As you can see, courtesy of Arbcom and gameplaying, I'm unable to respond to you directly...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]