Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Ten years! |
---|
Don't miss the poem that Phaedriel chose for you: "There should be no despair for you, ... / Then, journey on, if not elate, / Still, NEVER broken-hearted!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda. The Rambling Man (talk)
- I have heard of Phaedriel through various people but it seems she was active at a time when I was busy dealing with bottles and nappies. Anyway, let me cheer you up with some content news; the main reason I came here was actually to ask that I've been to the library today and got a bunch of book sources to write List of London mainline stations - and just wondered if that was an appropriate list title? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting stuff.... We already have List of London railway stations, which doesn't really mention "mainline". We also have Main line (railway) which needs work. I guess, and this is common to all FLCs, if your scope is adequately defined, i.e. what is the definition of "mainline" (or main line?), then there's no problem at all. I certainly wouldn't baulk at that name. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ritchie, for the complete poem (by Emily Brontë) - or the wealth of others, because Phaedriel assigned a different one to every recipient! - follow the link, then look for date or name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have heard of Phaedriel through various people but it seems she was active at a time when I was busy dealing with bottles and nappies. Anyway, let me cheer you up with some content news; the main reason I came here was actually to ask that I've been to the library today and got a bunch of book sources to write List of London mainline stations - and just wondered if that was an appropriate list title? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thaw
Beyond My Ken thanks for your recent contribution. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome -- it was only the truth, after all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein
Sandstein I won't be commenting on this enforcement request, the others that have commented already have covered it, and in any case, it won't stop a rogue admin from simply pulling the trigger in any case. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I know of at least three such admins whose judgement later proved to be incorrect. Some of them have been de-sysopped, some have just "disappeared" because they claimed they no longer understood how the community here worked. One or two are still lurking around... I'm sure you already knew that! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Arbs
331dot, thanks for your edit. Of course, that's precisely what Arbcom want, some fall guy admin to do their dirty work, and by creating such a nonsense subjective restriction, we go back and forth while people try to understand the real meaning. This group of Arbs have shown far less competence than any other committee during my experiences here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- In a minute, somebody will be along to vindictively turn TRM's talk page access off, at which point I'll be woken up at 3am tomorrow by a loud voice in the distance screaming "Constitution of Australia has a
{{no footnotes}}
tag" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- Indeed. And that's how fucking mental this place has become. The inmates are running it and it's going south faster than a tramp on chips. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Even I am surprised by that latest wall of text at WP:AE. You must mean the Low Orders? But I'd recommend "Northern Fat Lad" if you ever find you have a spare 4 minutes 18 seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to express your horror at the AE. The more these kind of things are repelled by clear thinkers, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- oooh, you won't catch me over there, thank you. As you know. most of my thinking is far from clear and frequenty quite biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [1]
- My horror keeps me away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- oooh, you won't catch me over there, thank you. As you know. most of my thinking is far from clear and frequenty quite biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [1]
- Feel free to express your horror at the AE. The more these kind of things are repelled by clear thinkers, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Even I am surprised by that latest wall of text at WP:AE. You must mean the Low Orders? But I'd recommend "Northern Fat Lad" if you ever find you have a spare 4 minutes 18 seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. And that's how fucking mental this place has become. The inmates are running it and it's going south faster than a tramp on chips. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
My statement at AE comes from a response Jeremy Paxman gave to Boris Johnson when he just would not stop pontificating about the cost of new Routemaster buses in London and give some basic facts, like how much they would cost. I would link the video, but apparently you're not even allowed to do that anymore :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, you're not allowed. That was in the good old days. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Irony
"Although I think him a detriment to the project, and he is clearly bullying, I haven't found a clear violation of this restriction." from an admin who tried to bully me away from his pet project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I think this comment applies to the individual who made it. I see no indication of any attempt to improve Wikpiedia for our readers here! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
ERRORS
Primergrey your oddly placed discussion is still there, can you see it, right at the bottom? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
No. I see only my single-word post in the TFL errors section. Primergrey (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC) I also see that that pticular FL is off the MP so I don't know why the errr section hasn't been cleared. But that's got nothing to do with me, does it? Primergrey (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've cleared it now. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And thanks for the heads-up Rambo. Primergrey (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies, TRM, I was called away by RL...also, I've been dealing with this nonsense, which diverted my attention for a while. If you ever want to feel kindly towards anybody (ARBCOM, for instance?) come dig into south Asian politics; you'll wonder what you were complaining about. Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Anti semitism
Feel free to involve me any time someone might wrongly accuse you of this. If I'm in, I'll help. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers. You know it's happened before, we'll see if it happens again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you becoming a cat lady?
Nice work with the Hot Cat tool. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Something to do while I'm waiting around to get blocked again I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You're listed as "Cap" number 98 in this WikiProject. It seems that the Project's talk page is sadly neglected these days. I know little about rugby but have seen how important an active WikiProject is to getting quality information on Wikipedia by helping each other. If you don't mind the nudge (and you may be very active, I've not checked) please pop by the WikiProject talk page from time to time to reply to comments - or start your own. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't done much at the rugby project lately although I think I was partly responsible for a Jonah Lomu international tries featured list. I've done SO MANY FEATURED LISTS it's hard to keep track of them all. Mind you, nowhere near as many FLs as GOOD ARTICLES, I've done nearly 200 of those. Just in case those who stalk me and believe all I do is create mayhem.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry
I've just noticed you've had some recent drahmazz. I'm sorry I wasn't aware. My editing of late has been sporadic, and a weird mix of focussed and very unfocussed, as you know I have offwiki stuff that's weighing heavily on time and mind.
The AE looks like trivial nonsense, dismissed as such, the filing editor should feel ashamed of themselves - they deserved a big fat encounter with a cold-blooded, aquatic vertebrate and more. We don't need to discuss that any further.
The block was much less trivial and I would, if you don't mind, like to discuss this with you.
When you have an interaction ban and the other editor comes tramping into an area where you're active, it's very difficult. I think you almost got it right, by emailing Arbcom, but you got punished for getting the sequencing wrong. I can understand why you behaved as you did. Arbcom are understandably but frustratingly slow. And lack of speed, in some areas where you edit, risks a deletorious effect on the encyclopedia where the discussion is time-bound, you are an expert and, as is the case with Main page issues, damage to the project you care so much about risks significant impact on our reputation.
I suggest three things:
- You ask Arbcom for a protocol to follow should something similar happen again
- You ask Arbcom to warn relevant parties you're in IBAN with that they will come down strongly on them (reverting edits, blocking without warning and topic bans come to mind) if they seem to be attempting to entrap you. Indeed I think such wording should become part of the standard template for IBANs
- Sensible experienced admins who are Arbcom approved intermediaries that are active in similar timezone to you could be a useful aid for tackling both points.
I'm also happy to ask Arbcom on your behalf for anything you want, in case you are worried that the discussion will aggravate things. Or you could ask someone else. I'm a fan of intermediaries (you may have noticed) as they help keep things calm.
Please be careful when replying to this, I wouldn't want you to contravene your IBAN accidentally. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- They'll say:
- Email us and wait. Do not engage.
- No, we won't be doing that.
- I'm not worried about this kind of thing really. Arbcom have adequately displayed time and again that they act first and don't think later. Most, if not all the issues that have involved slap-happy blocks could have been resolved using communication, but that's not part of this group's skillset. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Applying the old-fashioned values, how about trying? What's the worst that can happen? They might surprise you with a good outcome. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I did try making that point last time round. Communication rather than one-way IBAN slapped on me? No thanks TRM, we're here to protect others, not you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, well I won't push the point. I just hope an Arbcom tps might spot this and do something anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your good intentions. Don't hold your breath. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Told you so, in fact it appears the ongoing debate at Wreckcom's talkpage is simply reinforcing the fact that people like Molly and the long-absent oversighter just get way with they inadequate arbitration skills time after time after time. The funny thing is that the last Arbcom election saw someone who had made basically no edits to Wikipedia in years come in as a near winner. Maybe that's what this needs, sack off the Arbcom jokers, remove the "Ombudsman" (who? what?) and employ a panel who actually understand how Wikipedia works and how editors interact and how content is created. Most Arbs do nothing here, certainly nothing positive, they know it and that's why they leave it to the community to hang, draw and quarter individuals they don't like. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Have I enlarged the prose five-fold? Thinking about DYK, because a bloke who commentates on himself while doing top-class sport, is a bit of a hoot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Only if the large quotebox is included, and that size of quote is usually frowned upon... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Am I far short? It's easily expandable to a certain degree. NB did you mean that including that size quote in word count or in a DYK-worthy article? The quote is comedy gold. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) This says that a blockquote is not counted towards the expansion requirement, though of course there's no issues with actually including one in a nominated article in general. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Am I far short? It's easily expandable to a certain degree. NB did you mean that including that size quote in word count or in a DYK-worthy article? The quote is comedy gold. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, ignoring the quote, needs about another 150 words. Most people at DYK may argue against the inclusion of such a large quote in the character count. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both. 150+ words won't be too tricky. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Dweller: There is a DYKcheck tool you can install which can be very helpful. It shows that the pre-expansion version had 497 characters of readable prose (91 words), so a total of 2485 readable characters is needed. DYKcheck on the version as at this time stamp is 2226 characters (403 words), so you are short by 259 characters. That is considerably less than 150+ words as the spaces between words are counted as readable characters, so even at an average of four letters per word, another 50 words would do it. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not very good with tech :-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Dweller: There is a DYKcheck tool you can install which can be very helpful. It shows that the pre-expansion version had 497 characters of readable prose (91 words), so a total of 2485 readable characters is needed. DYKcheck on the version as at this time stamp is 2226 characters (403 words), so you are short by 259 characters. That is considerably less than 150+ words as the spaces between words are counted as readable characters, so even at an average of four letters per word, another 50 words would do it. Cheers, EdChem (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Am I there yet? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yep. The quote certainly made me chuckle...if I weren't on break I'd review it at DYK. Looking forward to seeing it on the main page. Vanamonde (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks chaps. I'll try nomming it once the citations pass muster. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note, Dweller, that it being classed as a stub and having bare URL references are both issues that will need to be addressed for DYK. EdChem (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll sort that out later today. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ha. Double funny. I just removed the stub tag and I was kind of hoping my old mucker might get stuck into the citation templates :-) There are a couple of refs that probably ought to be notes, too, but that's being way too clever for me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll sort that out later today. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
With an image, an expanded lead and much more info on his domestic career, this has the makings of an FA. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Dweller good to go for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ta. I'l nom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Carlisle Best, for all you talk-page stalkers out there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 July 2017
- News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes
- Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more
- In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce
- Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers
- Gallery: A mix of patterns
- Humour: The Infobox Game
- Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday
- Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up
List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication
Hi there. Two questions. Firstly, considering List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication was nominated at FLC over 3 months ago and is still open, can I nominate a second article there? Secondly, I have four votes of support, and a fifth editor explicitly stated he would support the nomination once his final, minor points were addressed. I have addressed the concerns, but he is taking long absences from logging into Wikipedia (see contribution history here), so he hasn't noticed yet. Considering I effectively have five votes of support, and considering that as I've previously pointed out I addressed all the concerns of the only two people opposing, have pinged them back there and have left messages on their talk pages yet they are effectively ignoring me, can this article be promoted or do I need to solicit more people to comment on it? I don't think it is fair for someone to oppose an article for specific reasons, then refuse to comment on the nomination again once those concerns have been addressed, so I don't think their opposition should be given much weight, especially since they are opposing a version of this article that is over two months old. Please advise. Thanks for your time. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll take a proper look shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Freikorp I've chased up the others. In the meantime, feel free to start another nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, before I promote this, I'm wondering if the copyright tags on the images are ok. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey. They look alright to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Willie Reid
Hi. I was trying to create a list of "EFL Cup winning managers" in Turkish Wikipedia, but I am stuck at one point. I see that you nominated List of Norwich City F.C. managers for a FL, ant it's been chosen as one. The article says "In 1962, Ron Ashman guided Norwich to their first trophy, defeating Rochdale 4–0 on aggregate in a two-legged final to win the League Cup" but that's a wrong information. In the list, it's written that Willie Reid was the manager during that period, and by considering the date of the final, that's the correct info. But the problem is, there is not an article for him. Willie Reid (footballer) article is about a different footballer/manager. So, can you create his article and correct misinformations plaese? Plaease ping me for your reply.--Rapsar (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Rapsar, I have changed it to Willie Reid (football manager). I will need to dig around to see if there's any more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually no, per Soccerbase here, it is the same Willie Reid. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm no football expert, but that just doesn't look right. Steps down from managing Dundee United in 1934, then is out of the game until 37 years later, when he comes to Norwich in his late 70s? This book says that Norwich's Willie Reid had previously managed St Mirren F.C., which isn't something that Willie Reid (footballer) did. BencherliteTalk 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so Soccerbase is wrong, which isn't 100% unusual. Feel free to adjust the list accordingly. Or ask Dweller to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm no football expert, but that just doesn't look right. Steps down from managing Dundee United in 1934, then is out of the game until 37 years later, when he comes to Norwich in his late 70s? This book says that Norwich's Willie Reid had previously managed St Mirren F.C., which isn't something that Willie Reid (footballer) did. BencherliteTalk 21:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually no, per Soccerbase here, it is the same Willie Reid. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Ashman was captain, not manager, of that Norwich side. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Where were we, before that interruption?
Were we about to put our shoulders behind Ramsey? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- We were, as Cliftonian is busy... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- After you, old chap. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy to send it straight to FAC. It's good enough, and there's no intermediate step that would really cover anything that FAC wouldn't throw up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- After you, old chap. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Mea culpa
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Arrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
The Rambling Man - You're under restriction from the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man from "insulting and/or belittling other editors". These two diffs here and here are in violation of that restriction. This is your only warning; do not engage in making personal attacks toward others, and do not resort to insults or other incivility in your collaboration and communication with others. Further violation of this restriction can result in an arbitration enforcement action. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Oshwah:FWIW, if that's a violation worthy of a block, something is seriously wrong around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with William, those comments seem relatively benign to me. Perhaps a bit on the blunt side, but not the sort of thing that I feel merits a warning. Kurtis (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to add my opinion on that these comments
does not seem to be directed at an individual; rather another commentary on general (cynicism maybe?) observation of the community as a whole from this editor. If it was a case of personal attack that merits a warning, Rob13 and Amakuru would probably have reacted differently. Alex ShihTalk 01:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)- I don't want to make a big thing out of this, but the comments are directed at me, in my opinion. They are in direct response to my comment regarding my confusion over why the candidate chose that particular time to transclude the RfB if they wouldn't be around for long. I found the comments to be in bad taste. ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I've struck out my comment. Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to add my opinion on that these comments
- @Oshwah: It is my understanding that TRM's ArbCom restriction is intended to prevent the sort of aggressive and harshly personal comments that have no place on WP, rather than to prevent every mild incivility from TRM which would be tolerated from other editor. It is my opinion that treating TRM like he bears a scarlet letter from the ArbCom sanction that justifies an "only warning" backed by the threat of an AE block for anything that is even mildly uncivil is both unhelpful and unjustified. Rob has stated that he "found the comments to be in bad taste", so perhaps asking TRM to consider commenting directly to Rob or to consider refactoring is justified... but I believe your warning / threat is both an over-reaction and counter-productive. TRM is an experienced editor, and sometimes makes inappropriate / unacceptable comments. He is also a former admin and bureaucrat with a clear dedication to WP. I have great respect for the contributions he makes, even while also disagreeing with him at times and believing that he can comment unhelpfully / unacceptably personally a times, which led to the (justified, IMO) ArbCom restriction. He is not a naughty child to be cowed into compliance with threats, and I believe that history shows the ineffectiveness of that approach. TRM, I am glad that you have not reacted to Oshwah's post, hopefully recognising that a mature response (or non-response) is wiser... May I suggest that you offer some response to Rob's experience of your comments, and consider re-factoring the RfB comments in light of how Rob experienced them? Oshwah, I truly believe that if you felt you had to comment to TRM, something along the lines of "your comment seems harsher than perhaps you intended, and could be taken as insulting... perhaps in light of the ArbCom restrictions, refactoring should be considered" would have been more productive. TRM has made comments in the past that would justify a warning of the strength used here... this was not one of them, in my view. Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Carlisle Best
On 25 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carlisle Best, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that international cricketer Carlisle Best would "aggravate bowlers" by commentating on himself while batting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carlisle Best. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carlisle Best), 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.
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Another rambler
Just thought, in case you hadn't seen it yet, that you might be interested in seeing this user name; the editor made this edit to Sheep. – Corinne (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Corinne, seems pretty benign to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
La Damoiselle élue
La Damoiselle élue: I found - searching for refs for the recordings, translated from French - that the BNF has no simple list, because the short piece is always in a combination. I found (on top of a review for one that's not yet listed) this for the first. Do I have to write an elaborate citation for every single one? Seems a bit undue weight ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- As always, it's just about how the reader can verify that such recordings are genuine and not a mistake or some imaginary made-up stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't answer the question if I have to write a complete citation. Found another. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think it does, how does the reader verify the existence of these recordings without reliable sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- They could with a url, for example. How about WorldCat? - Sometimes I'd wish I could read the minds of these French and German writers who compile but don't say from where. I'm only the nominator, DYK? Problem with WorldCat is that you heve to search for the first date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- All I know is that when I'm writing any article, if I can't provide inline citations, I can't add the material, it's unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- All these recordings will be in WorldCat, but who wants to check the 85 entries? I only nominated an interesting article. The author only translated what was there in French. We could translate the next now, instead of digging work. - Did you know that we have about 200 articles on Bach's cantatas, and only GAs and FAs cite the recordings? - For now, I added the WorldCat as external link, + some are visible when you click on "data" in authority control. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I get it, but whether it's a DYK or a FAC, claims need to be verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- All these recordings will be in WorldCat, but who wants to check the 85 entries? I only nominated an interesting article. The author only translated what was there in French. We could translate the next now, instead of digging work. - Did you know that we have about 200 articles on Bach's cantatas, and only GAs and FAs cite the recordings? - For now, I added the WorldCat as external link, + some are visible when you click on "data" in authority control. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Something to enjoy after the recent kerfuffle.
...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers buddy. I love kittens. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom fallout
I just spotted the warning you received overnight. Honestly, I despair. The way ArbCom's sanctions were worded just give license to users to wave the banhammer at you constantly for anything other than the meekest and mildest behaviour. I agree with the comments that we shouldn't expect you to behave better than others, including admins who feel free to use appalling language without fear of being warned or blocked. It must be very wearing.
I think you should consider appealing to Arbcom for them to reconsider the wording of Remedy 4, "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."
The standard for behaviour on Wikipedia is WP:CIVIL and this policy applies to all, whether ArbCom targets or vested administrators. I'd suggest that they focus their remedy on the policy language at Wikipedia:Civility#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment: "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians." as clearly telling editors to "Fuck off" is OK* for everyone else apart from you (it's neither a personal attack nor harassment), whilst for you it can be construed by anyone with an axe to grind as "belittling" or "insulting" and lead you back into AE nonsense.
Which is nonsense.
Belittling and insulting is dealt with in CIVIL. As is using phrases like "Fuck off". It's right there, in the messy section that begins "It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not.", which is why everyone ignores it.
Just to encourage you to do make this appeal, I've found the instructions for appealing. They're here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
* Of course this is absolutely not OK, but it seems that policy and common practice round here says that it is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's pointless. I told them at the time that the wording was completely open to interpretation and subject to personal preference. It was completely ignored, much like most of the rest of my communications with Arbcom. There is nothing for me at all to be gained in trying again other than more disappointment, more drama, more waste of my life. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have more optimism. Will you let me file for you? I've read the instructions three times and it doesn't appear that the affected party needs to be the one to file. You can, with absolute pleasure, ignore the whole farrago, not watchlist the page and I promise I'll only bother you if we need your say-so on something, or to say "done" or "meh, forget it". I don't mind wasting my time as I don't consider it a waste of time. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have had a word with Oshwah; hopefully that'll be the end of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ritchie. My concern is for the next Wikipedian who waves the banhammer at TRM. It wasn't Oshwah last time, and it won't be Oshwah the next time. Or the next. Or the next... If it were me, each time it happened, I'd get more and more agitated until one day, I'd respond in a way that was truly uncivil and I'm about as placid as they come. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to file something Dweller, don't hold your breath on anything positive coming out of it in a timely fashion... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ritchie. My concern is for the next Wikipedian who waves the banhammer at TRM. It wasn't Oshwah last time, and it won't be Oshwah the next time. Or the next. Or the next... If it were me, each time it happened, I'd get more and more agitated until one day, I'd respond in a way that was truly uncivil and I'm about as placid as they come. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have had a word with Oshwah; hopefully that'll be the end of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was told I should not file for someone else when I demanded clarification of the
sillyrestrictions for Andy (remember: not to add an infobox to an article he writes, etc?). I was successful, anyway, and then the last restriction from the infoboxes case was lifted in 2016. DYK? - Do people know? No. So in a way an appeal, even when successful, will not stop people from branding you, - it's probably a waste of time. The good name of Grace Sherwood was restored after 300 years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was told I should not file for someone else when I demanded clarification of the
I'm going to file. I won't bother you, as above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Somebody's going to file "WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 2" (or is it 3? 4?) at some point; I'm not because it'll involve some of my favourite editors getting topic bans. Perhaps. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#The Rambling Man and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,
I will revert myself in a minute, but I follow the rules. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)