User talk:The Rambling Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

[edit] Want to join?

Hello The Rambling Man! I noticed that you contribute to cricket related articles. We are a "WikiProject" aiming to expand, improve and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. We would like to invite you to join us. If you would like to help but don't know what to do, please see our project page or inquire on our talk page. You may sign up for the project on our members list. Happy editing!

Best wishes. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Signed-up or no, TRM has offered an exceptional amount to the WikiProject. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BRC & privacy concerns

Hey TRM, would you mind dropping in your opinion here? Thanks. GlassCobra 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi GlassCobra. TRM is away for a little while yet. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New FLRC instructions?

Hi TRM—

I've taken the bull by the horns. Please criticise. Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates. PS why no ToC on that talk page? TONY (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, Tony; The Rambling Man is currently away on holiday (see box at page top), so I hope you'll forgive my answering in lieu of him. The Table of Contents on standard Wikipedia pages is only displayed when there are four or more ==level 2 headings== on the page in question. As Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates currently only has three threads on it, the ToC is not automatically displayed.

As you're clearly missing the ToC, however, I've taken the liberty of forcing it to display regardless of the number of threads, by adding __TOC__ to the page; this will override the standard limit on the ToC displaying.

Hope this helps! Anthøny 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second round of WikiCup

The second round of the WikiCup has begun! It now runs until July 31.

SoxBot II (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMG

OMG he's back. Gary King (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd better believe it. I'm still very travel weary - 10 hours with Air Namibia's finest "hospitality" in economy class is not my idea of fun! I'll get back in the saddle soon... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding +sysop flag

I don't know if someone already told you this, if they did, just ignore me.

When you make someone a sysop, you need to replace their +rollback flag with the +sysop, not just add the +sysop. Having rollback rights and sysop rights is redundant, and people keep removing the +rollback from new admins that you "sysop-ed".

Sorry if it is not my place to tell you this, its just that I've noticed it more than once in my random clicking, and your user rights log shows that you frequently forget to remove the +rollback.

Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hello The Rambling Man, I just noticed that you were back. I hope that your visit to Namibia was a good one. Best wishes. Acalamari 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! Have a good rest. :) Acalamari 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hey, just noticed that you got back from your trip. Could you comment at the peer review for List of Naruto characters? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Move_.22Urgent.22_box_to_its_own_page.3F

done FYI Gary King (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you are a director, your thoughts on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Editintro_for_FLC_nominations.3F please Gary King (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Sam Cowan Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 10 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you archive Toronto Raptors draft history?

You could have at least given 24 hours to meet the only remaining comments, Gary's comments. --Crzycheetah 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we got rid of the four support rule to avoid such situations. There were 3 supports including the nominator's and no comments/opposes to meet until Gary made his comments several hours ago. Do you want editors to make nonconstructive edits just to show that they are active? I mean there were no edits since May 30 because there were no necessary edits to make. All major edits were done either before the nominations or right after reviewers commented.--Crzycheetah 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches

Sorry for the delay in the comments. Just took care of all the comments (including the big one in which I had to re-do the table) Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An FLC idea

This is an idea I've been batting around for a few months and I thought I'd get your opinion on it. I was thinking we could have some kind of contest that would help get some interest in the process. There are various ways we could run it, but my idea was that the we would have participants work on a list, and first to get it promoted would win. However, that list would have to fall into the category of an under-represented topics (ie. Philosophy, physics, etc.) We would also get some users to act as reviewers to make sure that the lists didn't get bogged down by a lack of reviews. What do you think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Promoting it would be a bit tricky. We could notify a bunch of the most frequent FL contributers (but try to not make it look like canvassing). If we could get 6-12 people, I'd consider it a success. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So if we're in agreement, when do we want to get started on this? I'll be away for 3 weeks starting in early July, so if we started this week, we could have a winner by then. Here's what the rules could be:

Entrants will select a list from one of the following under-represented categories: Art, architecture and archaeology; Business, economics and finance; Chemistry and mineralogy; Computing; Food and drink; History; Law; Mathematics; Royalty, nobility and heraldry; Transport; Philosophy and psychology; Space; Physics; Language and linguistics

Only one entrant per category. To ensure fairness, a user is not allowed to pick a topic they are familiar with. Determining factors: if they are a member of a relating wikiproject or have worked on any lists previously from that topic.

The first user to get their list promoted will be declared the winner. Users are not allowed to submit an FLC before [insert date]. Please do not submit an FLC before you start work on an article; snowball closures will result in a disqualification.

Lists must first be approved by the great and powerful Scorpion0422 or the weak and unremarkable Rambling Man. You are allowed to switch lists after the competition begins, but not topics.

That's all I can think of. Anything to add? We would have to find some users who would be willing to do some quickie reviewing. That way, lists won't be delayed by a lack of reviews. Tony1 could help as he likely won't enter. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started on a page for it. Any ideas for a fancy title? And are you on IRC at all? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Contest, make any changes you feel are necessary. If you ever are on IRC, go to #wpsimpsons. That's the board I frequent, my username should either have Brian or McClure in it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are on IRC. I don't see you. What is the username you will be using? Gary King (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

Always good to see your name in my watchlist - hope Namibia was great and thanks for the review, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for reverting my User Page from vandalism. I'm glad you blocked the vandal.

Thank you.

Tovojolo (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches

Done. Please let me know if you have further comments and/or if I missed anything. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)