User talk:The Rambling Man

9 March

• Stephen - queue 4 - " can be demolished" is not suitable in tone, the article doesn't use this phrasing. In fact, the article puts it much better: "The larvae from a single egg cluster can destroy a whole cabbage or cauliflower plant". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Devoured. Rewording involved too much repetition. Stephen

• Stephen - queue 4 - "in Aurora, Colorado was" comma needed after Colorado. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't find this one? Stephen 09:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Weird, it's now in queue 2, with a comma... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it was a duplicate, removed less than an hour ago... But The ed17 left the approved set (queue 4) one hook down. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As I made others aware of at the time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I was stating a fact. And trying to fix the problem left behind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So why did you ping me? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Stephen - queue 5 - "Pangolins are believed to be the world's most trafficked mammal" in the article. The hook has lost the "believed to be".... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Added, but no idea how to pull a hook. Stephen 09:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Incidentally, there are a number of unreferened paragraphs in that article, it's reasonable to pull it as containing too much unverifiable information (i.e. it could easily be tagged with {{ref improve}}). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Stephen - queue 5 - " whom he was coincidentally seated near on a flight" I can't access the source, but is this meant to imply that the good impression and his selection came as a result of the seating arrangements rather than Almon's performance in the trials? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TRM that this bit of information is dubious in a living person bio, implying as it does that there was some impropriety in his draft procedure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It may need to be reported at ERRORS or at WT:DYK as Stephen isn't comfortable pulling the hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've pulled it and turned queue 5 back into prep 5, as I don't have the time to find another hook at the moment, and this lets anyone, not just an admin do it. Harrias ^talk 09:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I will do something in due course. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Harrias thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - queue 5 - Tofu Curtain there's a dab link (Hipster) in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 1 - "that biologist Nessa Carey" should be "the biologist" to avoid false title. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - "that Snugburys, a UK ice cream " we don't say that, "a British ice cream...." is BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - I was going to suggest linking Non-League football (which appears to be capitalised in our encyclopedia and not in the hook or target article), but it's unreferenced. In any case I'd link FA Cup as most non-Brits would not know what this national competition was all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Cwmhiraeth please let Maile66 that we had this discussion and it was fixed 12 hours before their complaint. Please let them know that I had the same complaint as they did, and we both resolved it 12 hours ago. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - Snugbury hook again, strictly it's not "straw and steel" it's steel-reinforced straw, and as such the hook and caption need to be clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Both done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - it's definitely worth considering linking North Rhodesia or Rhodesia here as most of our readers will not know where it is/was. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth - prep 6 - "are a husband-and-wife pair?" what's wrong with "are husband and wife" or "are married"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done both. I could link Northern Rhodesia as well but perhaps that would be overlinking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Maile66 saying " there is absolutely nothing in the article or hook that tells you this is a UK match" is absolutely incorrect. It states clearly that it's an FA Cup match in both. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Maile66 Very well but it had been fixed before your initial complaint, as a result of the conversation here between me and Cwmhiraerth. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender no, that's not true at all. I don't suffer fools gladly, but I also don't like the fact that an admin has been completely let off for calling me a prick, and an asshole and tell me "fuck you". I never resorted to those absolute and overt personal attacks. I had also attempted to place many of those comments initially raised into some kind of context, but all I'm hearing back from some quarters is that I'm wrong. Oddly I'm hearing in some numbers that I'm not wrong. But that's the nature of the subjective Arbcom sanction. I've never said that admins are "admins are 100% of the problem", diff for that direct quote please. In fact, as we have so few admins, they are very seldom the problem, but when they are part of the problem, fellow admins shouldn't be ignoring it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Now you are proving what you were attempting to refute: " ... TRM keeps harping ad nauseum on "it's them not me" and "admins are 100% of the problem" [NOTE: an obvious figure of speech, not a quote], despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility". You cannot refrain from sniping at admins, and you cannot refrain from blaming others. Please re-read WP:NOTTHEM. If you have a possibly sanctionable complaint about another editor(s), take it to an appropriate noticeboard or their talk page (when you are unblocked). At this point I think you are starting to alienate even those who are or were or might have been in favor of unblocking or reducing the block. Softlavender (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is clever. Attack a guy (repeatedly, endlessly, and then when he defends himself tell him he's to blame for 'harping on ad nauseam'. How about leaving him alone and then see how much he's harping? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never attacked TRM (much less "repeatedly, endlessly"), and if you do not think this opening sally today [1] was perpetuating the behavior ad nauseum despite numerous good-faith pleas and admonishments to stop and to take responsibility, then that's fine, we can agree to disagree. Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Clever and unfortunate. Softlavender is well aware of the personal attacks directed towards me yet continues to do absolutely nothing. I suggest you stop making up quotes of mine, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never made up quotes of yours (and when I do actually quote somebody, I always supply diffs unless my reply is directly below their statement). I am not interested taking actions that you need to take but which you avoid taking in favor of blaming others. Softlavender (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that there are several people who are happy to allow, even enable, certain individuals to make numerous personal attacks without addressing them. That you feel the need for me to take action in this regard is testimony to the bureaucracy that these kinds of situations inevitably devolve into instead of actively taking real and responsible action. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the actions of others. I have never enabled anybody (with the possible exception of one senior editor who was reported at ANI, but when my apparent enabling was pointed out to me I abruptly stopped). People are responsible for their own actions. If you feel strongly about the behavior of others, it is your responsibility to address that, in an appropriate venue. Softlavender (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you're an admin. You should take appropriate action against people who personally attack normal editors, part of admin responsibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Er, at the risk of stepping on toes, but Softlavender is not an admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, then they have no responsibility whatsoever to do anything about these personal attacks. My error, apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, TRM. Yet even if I were an admin, the responsibility for your own grievances lies with you. Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will have to agree to disagree. Admins are responsible for protecting others from egregious personal attacks, especially from other admins. This "in the club" thing is too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hut 8.5 "I don't think the root cause of this issue is the remedy being ambiguous or unclear", me neither, it's not the "root cause" by any means, but trying to solve a problem by applying a messy, subjective, woolly filter on top is by far from ideal. I did state this way back, that one man's "belittling"/"bullying" is another man's "whatever", and as such, the sanction was always open to interpretation/abuse. Nothing doing. Anyway, just wanted to let you know this isn't news, it's olds. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hut 8.5 " It looks like he's keen on the idea of clarifying the restriction because he thinks it's being abused rather than because he doesn't understand it." sorry, I always understood it and I always knew it was nonsense. Please don't ever think I didn't understand it. What I didn't understand was why so many learned individuals ("Arbcom") thought the wording of it was appropriate. I always thought it could be interpreted entirely subjectively, i.e. it wasn't objective. Whether it was "abused" or not is a different discussion entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MLauba "Otherwise, quite frankly, the best thing to spare you another year of increased disenchantment and pile-ons is to scramble your password and walk away. This is either your last AE, or the beginning of the end. " really? really? Remind me to not ever vote for you as a councillor or at Arbcom! I'm fine with all of Wikipedia and it's castes. I'll keep going and making sure it's in a good state until some bans me or indef blocks me. I'm not walking away, that's stupid and counter-productive for the project - I make more positive mainspace contributions in a day than most of the people involved in this discussion make in a year. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you do, but you are also a target to the many enemies you have made over the years, who will not give you an inch. The point you're missing is that if you let resentment and bitterness continue eating at you, such as evidenced in your last couple of posts here, the coming year is going to be a succession of further indignities that will kill away the last ounce of joy and pride you had for your contributions by the time you get banned.

I don't believe we ever interacted even during my short active period, but I became first aware of you when you laid down your crat bit in the context of the date delinking case. I found that admirable back in the day - when I passed my RfA later that same year, I always set myself a principle that should a case be opened in which I'm a party, I'd lay down the tools immediately, based on your example. If you can change, do. If you can't, the 2009 TRM knew to walk away from a problem on his own terms. That's all I'm saying (and I'm not standing for any further elections, thank you). Anyway, I've overstayed my welcome here, or any value I could add to this. Good bye. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Boat Race

Black Kite don't worry, I won't be able to update the article so it won't run this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-imposed conversation limit suggestion

Hello all. How's about this: I'll place a self-imposed limit of one response to any editor with whom there is any disagreement. That response will be neither "belittling" nor "bullying" but will inform the editor that I will not be continuing with the disagreement. I believe that wording and its interpretation is still highly subjective and any such commons need context, but that didn't seem necessarily the way the enforcement was conducted. However, a limitation on my interactions with editors with whom I may be in disagreement seems a good place to start. It's my pledge that a lot of the scenarios which were brought up will not occur again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Dweller, maybe you could direct those admins at the AE page who think I'm adamantly adamant that nothing will change when I recommence editing to this? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good compromise, I'm pretty sure none of those diffs cited by The ed17 are first responses so it should really curtail anything that way inclined. And then we'll need to take a look at the personal attacks on me which have gone completely unaddressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't harp on about the proposal ad nauseam, or you'll be blocked for 6 months. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the bit where they say "obviously not a quote" when it's "obviously a quote" because "it's in quote marks". There aren't even any supporting diffs. If the shoe was on the foot, it'd be struck or the jury would be told to "not take it into account" as unverifiable. Never mind. Let's see how much good faith can be applied to my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MLauba I don't really understand the logic there. I'll get unblocked at some point and if I don't try this, then I'll get reblocked at some point thereafter. I guess the point is whether it reduces the block length or not, it's worth a go. I'd sooner sit out the whole block than be prevented from working on reducing the errors that go to the main page, so no, I don't want a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The topic ban is not on the table anyway, as it would require another run at ARCA, it was more of me musing whether removing you from a high stakes / high stress environment for a while would provide a way forward. I understand that you are passionate about the quality of the main page, but I'm not currently seeing a good solution that will not bring you back to AE within weeks of your unblock. I was actually considering reversing my vote for reducing the block length since yesterday. I'd be delighted to get reassurances that this would be wrong on my part. That being said, I understand you owe me nothing, and my one voice won't sway the current consensus anyway. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, my most recent 20 or 30 thousand contributions have been focused on keeping errors off the main page. That's what I do. If I eventually do it so badly that I am banned from Wikipedia, I'll only have myself to blame. Of course you're entitled to change your mind, you don't need to explain that to me. I can see how the trend is heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I made a suggestion at User talk:Sandstein#What would it take?. I'd like your feedback as to whether or not that would be something you'd be willing to go for. Clarifying what "insulting or belittling" means would seem to help you better understand what you can and can not do (something that many of the admins commenting correctly identify as a problem), and making it less vague would have the added bonus of cutting down on the vagueness being abusively used as a weapon against you. If it works on a voluntary basis, ARCA might be willing to formalize it. What say you? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification/rewording would good; Sandstein admitted that he took no context into account when making the one-month block based on those diffs. There's a stark difference, even in admins here, in the interpretation of those diffs: they vary from "well a one-month block is well deserved" to "nothing to see here" which demonstrates that the initial sanction was very poorly worded. I would certainly be interested in investigating that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

But actually, this is all in vain if User:Sandstein's chilling threat that anyone changing the block duration would be subject to sanctions. I'm confused, perhaps the blocking admin would be able to expand on why it was a month, why he hasn't responded to others (per ADMINACCT) and why anyone modifying the block duration would be subject to their own set of sanctions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein's threat is an empty one, and I ignored it. AE sanctions that are overturned out of process are subject to sanctions. However, right now we're following the exact process laid out. Even if Sandstein declines to overturn, it can still be done by consensus of uninvolved admins. And that does not necessarily require unanimity. By my count, there are currently 9 uninvolved admins who endorsed shortening the block with no other conditions, and 6 who wanted to keep it at one month. One of those six has already said they would be agreeable to either your proposal or mine. Of course numbers are not everything, as you well know from your time as an admin, but I do think we're moving in the right direction towards solving the root cause of the trouble you've been having (rather than just this latest iteration of it). Most of the others who wanted to keep it cited your lack of understanding what was not acceptable, so clarifying it should go a long way towards demonstrating to them that the block is no longer necessary. On another note, the way you politely disagreed with Softlavender just now is exactly the right way to do so, and I'm encouraged by that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll not break the terms of my Arbcom sanctions ever again. And if I do, I expect to be banned from the project! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow

Look how the mighty have fallen. Once an admin, now a disgraced and blocked editor. How does it feel to be brought down a peg, hmm? 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:73 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It feels pretty crap, but not for the reasons you've posted. I couldn't care less about being an admin or a 'crat. Being "brought down a peg", well that comes with the territory. It's fine, things like this remind me of cop shows where a really successful and good-looking cop ends up wrongly imprisoned, surrounded by his former foe. Regardless of their intimidation tactics, he wins out. As for "how the might have fallen", nice literature glance, but I'd hardly consider admins to be "mighty", something of the opposite in reality. I do appreciate your comments, it's no surprise that you're hiding by an anonymous IP, but thanks for everything you've done to improve Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry to undo, Ealdgyth but you called it "grave-dancing", not sure you know something I don't know. This is simply an aggressive, aggrieved banned user who I've had to deal with for the last 10 years. If you're directing me to a grave somewhere, please let me know. I won't be hopping into it quite yet, too much to do, too many people to discuss! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I just figured you didn't need the bating/trolling. But if you're fine with it, no skin off my nose. Just trying to help out and keep trolling at bay. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It has come to this

User:Sandstein is now effectively requesting I grovel or make some trite comment to appease him. I don't really know what to say. In my world, we make objectives that are achievable, and can be measured. I made a concrete proposal to limit my exposure to situations where my reactions may be contrary to some people's interpretation of the Arbcom sanctions. I say that because the sanctions are very much open to interpretation, and Sandstein himself admitted that he based his one-month ban on a cursory glance at the diffs provided, not at the context of the discussions. I did more than that, and looked at each discussion, distilled a theme and evolved a possible solution. Yet that's not enough. And in the meantime, Sandstein is threatening other admins with sanctions if they adjust my block period. I didn't know this kind of "uber-user" existed. In summary, I've made a suggestion as to how to best progress this, to benefit Wikipedia, and I await others' input. I suppose the other thing I could have done was to grit my teeth and say "yes, everything I've ever said was wrong and rude and belittling and bullying and I'm sorry", but that's nonsense too. At some point, we'll need a grown-up to actually look at this and make a decision on whether striving for a process-waving "sorry" is better than a practical suggestion to improve.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I forgot to mention, there's zero risk for Wikipedia here. Sandstein etc will happily indef block me should I put one foot out of their interpreted line, so I'm unclear what the problem is. I've made a practical suggestion to reduce conflict, I've heard plenty of hate directed to me, including the admin's "fuck you, asshole", etc, what now? Sandstein, tell me what you want to hear, and I'll type it out. If I don't abide by it, you get to indef me. Simple, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that "et al." is supposed to be used to mean other people, while "etc." is to be used to mean other (non-human) things. I think you want "Sandstein, et al." --MZMcBride (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No, etc just means "and the others". But thanks for your message. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, not according to both our article (et cetera#Similar Latin expressions) and the New Oxford American Dictionary. From its usage notes on the "et cetera" entry: "This abbreviation should be used for things, not for people. Et al. (an abbreviation of et alii, ‘and other people, and others’) is properly used for others (people) too numerous to mention, as in a list of multiple authors: Bancroft, Fordwick, et al." I suppose we could consider users and user names to be things instead of people, but that seems weird.

And no problem! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well by now I'm sure you realise that many users are dogs, trees, minerals, astral bodies etc. Once again, thanks for your insightful interjection, it has truly enriched this talk page, which is mainly bereft of any intellectual substance. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I don't know about astral bodies, but some editors are rays of sunshine, others, not so much. The problem is, we need to deal with all of them, and sometimes, suffer fools, gladly or no. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the the discussion at AE coming to a resolution any time soon. Perhaps you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee directly (well, via proxy), with a narrow focus on reducing the block length. I think in light of mitigating circumstances, the Committee would agree it was overlong, and then, they can direct to reduce it themselves. El_C 08:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks El_C but as you can see from the various contributors, there's no chance that anything I say or do will be sufficient. Each individual seems to have their unique version of magic passwords that I need to utter in order to gain their forgiveness, I did what I thought was the right thing, to pledge a self-imposed discussion criterion to prevent the supposed disputes, but that wasn't enough. I've asked people what they want to hear, nothing doing. A month-long block after which I will simply resume editing with that pledge in place is no different to a week-long block after which I will simply resume editing with that pledge in place. In fact, if there's so much confidence that I'll just get blocked again, wouldn't it make more sense to unblock me sooner rather than later to get the inevitable over with? All this is now achieving is more and more poor quality articles going to the main page. So that's a real victory for Wikipedia and our readers. There's no logic at all behind this, which is incredibly frustrating, but I appreciate your efforts enormously. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this is before the Committee after all and I just missed it. I have added my own brief comment that I think summarizes the issues I take with the sacntion. El_C 20:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam nor do I believe I said any of those interactions were as a result of your personal attacks. Although did you include the timing of the "prick" attack in your assertion? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam here you go, January 30. "Prickgate". I think that falls squarely in the centre of the diffs presented, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

El C in response to Floquenbeam's claim about the personal attacks coming after all those diffs, see above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Addressed. El_C 23:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

10 March

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 1 - "the Manchester Gorton by-election, 2017 was..." either needs a comma after 2017, or to be written more elegantly, e.g. "the 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election was...". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Cwmhiraeth - prep 1 - "using a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher?" no need for the abbreviation, it's not used. The Rambling Man (talk)

  And actually, there's no need for "launcher" here either. The RPG is itself the equipment used. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 1 - "was regarded as "a heavy adult drama about best friends and the after-effects of war"?" it wasn't really "regarded" as that, those were the words of a single reviewer in Variety. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was one review, as I think the quotation marks show, but other reviews are similar. What would you recommend? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"one reviewer called it" or "was described as ... by one reviewer". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything more elegant? It should end with the quote, not with the one reviewer (or "a reviewer"?) who'd get undue weight. I am also afraid it will get too long to be interesting. How about simply "was described as"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's how I've tweaked it. Stephen 10:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Nothing wrong with The Lord is my Shepherd? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 1 - the Redfield hook is fine, just in the article there's " partner Sheva Alomar[16] Eventually, " which needs a full stop. Minor, but annoying. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Stephen 10:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Stephen and I have dealt with all these. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Howcheng - tomorrow - Fast of Esther the article says it was yesterday, not tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  He'd already got that one. Stephen

• Howcheng - tomorrow - the Royal assent hook is referenced in the article "No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.[10]" but [10] is dated to 2002, so it's not covering the last 15 years. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  Referenced to UK parliament, and the date was actually 1707. Stephen

• Howcheng - tomorrow - we don't normally link major geographical entities, like London. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Stephen 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Howcheng - tomorrow - not strictly your purview, but in the Sho Tai article, Xianfeng is a dab link, should be easy to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed. Stephen 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Howcheng - tomorrow - Reno's official job title was United States Attorney General so we don't need to use a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

11 March

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 2 - inconsistent $ vs US$ across the set. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 2 - "leading to the eventual downfall of the Khmer Rouge regime?" this looks like a stretch to me. Our Khmer Rouge article makes no such claims, neither Gooch nor her organisation are even mentioned. The quote from The Guardian seems to be more implying that the actions of Gooch et al. resulted in a portion of the Khmer Rouge defecting, not the downfall of the regime. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrote hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth - prep 2 - ".. that during Phillip Gillespie's debut match as a cricket umpire in the Sheffield Shield, Doug Bollinger took a hat-trick from his end?" this is confusing enough to parse for me and I'm a big cricket fan. I would suggest it would be advisable to link "end" to Glossary of cricket terms#E to clarify it's not Bollinger's "end", it's the umpire's end. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Howcheng - tomorrow - " Shushan Purim begins at sunset", the article says "Shushan Purim falls on Adar 15" (which apparently is the day after tomorrow), but it also says "Purim is celebrated on the Adar 14" (i.e. tomorrow). The infobox says "2017 date Sunset, 11 March – nightfall, 12 March", so it's a complete muddle. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• According to this Purim is tomorrow and Shushan Purim is on Monday, however these days tend to run from sunset to sunset, so Shushan Purim does actually start at sunset tomorrow. I think the OTD is right but the article is confusing matters. Whether it's worth pulling is another matter. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• David Levy, I know you may not pick this up in time, but just out of interest, are you in a position to expound on this? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 12's current wording is correct. Indeed, expressing Jewish observances' timing within the Gregorian calendar tends to be tricky, and the "Purim"/"Shushan Purim" distinction compounds the confusion in this instance. —David Levy 19:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks David, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Howcheng - tomorrow - "international football player." for the avoidance of doubt (and because most of our audience aren't British), I would rephrase this "international association footballer". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's pipelinked, and since American football doesn't really have international teams or tournaments, I've left it. Black Kite (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Black Kite It's an odd turn of phrase though, certainly British English calls these people "footballers" rather than "football players". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Howcheng - tomorrow - 1993 Bombay bombings, the blurb has "over 250 civilians and injuring over 700 others", that should be "more than 250 ... more than 700 others". But then there's the issue of the infobox says 713 injured while the lead says 717. The article then goes on to say 1,400 were injured. It's a bit of a mess to go on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Replaced. I'd already raised other issues with this one at WP:ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• HalfGig - Prep 4 - "that in the 17th century France the staff " the first "the" is not necessary, there could also be a comma after France. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• HalfGig - Prep 4 - "Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul" is linked from the article rather than the dismabiguation page Daughters of Charity currently used in the hook in the prep set. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• HalfGig - Prep 4 - "after unroofing hundreds of homes, Cyclone Althea in December 1971" reads out of order, it should probably be "after Cyclone Althea unroofed hundreds of homes in December 1971, ..." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• HalfGig - Prep 4 - not that you're the only one that could fix this, but it's been promoted to the set with numerous disambiguation links in the body, i.e. Georgia, 71st Infantry Division, Hungarian, Port of Portland.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• HalfGig - Prep 4 - two Second World War hooks in a single set is usually frowned upon, two in a row seems too much by far. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  Plus, Reichstag and Bismark (spelt incorrectly) are dab links in the article itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • sofixit instead of doing nothing but complaining about others all the time. HalfGig talk 19:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't. But thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• HalfGig - Prep 4 - The Kingdom of Kevin Malone the hook is referenced by "heartless-bitches.com" which appears to be a feeder site for Amazon. Is that a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth, Stephen if these aren't resolved by the set preparer, perhaps one of you would be good enough to have a look and assess which could/should be resolved. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll fix mine but after that I'm done with DYK. I find it highly ironic that someone that is blocked (which I didn't know til a few moments ago) is actively communicating with other users. HalfGig talk 19:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I honestly tried to fix some of these but got edit conflicted about 5 times. I think the only one left is the "heartless" reference but I'm not sure what to do about that one. Remove it from the prep set or what? HalfGig talk 19:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what is ironic about an editor working within policy to correct errors in the DYK section, if you could tell me why, that might prove very helpful. Sorry you want to quit DYK, were any of my comments rude, incorrect, etc? Again it would be beneficial to me if you could answer that honestly. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the query over the reliability of that source, I would simply return it to noms with a question. There's no deadline so if it's delayed a few days while the source is clarified, no-one should mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have fixed all these except for the book source. Sorry if I caused edit conflicts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Cwm. Any view on that source? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that's a different type of problem. If you could find a suitable alternative source you could report it here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've returned Kevin Malone to noms. If someone wants to check that I did it correctly, feel free. I think this is the first time I've done that. HalfGig talk 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Rambling Man. I apologize for being curt. That's on me. When I first saw this list I was taken aback by the wall of issues and wondered why you didn't help any. I did not then know you were blocked. Nothing you said on this page today was rude, but I have seen that from you before. I don't recall what you said but do recall some comment you made at talk:DYK that went something like "is this kindergarten or an encyclopedia" (rough paraphrase). I will continue to try to help at DYK and let's move forward constructively. Just keep in mind I'm not overly experienced at DYK yet. HalfGig talk 20:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. You can see from the issues I've raised today, yesterday and the day before that we still need more quality control on the things that are being promoted to the main page. That comment, while curt itself, remains basically true, if we really believe we're contributing to a global encyclopedia, we need quality, tone, neutrality etc. So often the hooks promoted at DYK lack one or more of those. Glad to hear you're sticking with it, experience at DYK will take some time but you'll be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Suppose I may as well ask here, as this seems to be the new DYK Errors page. Re Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017), do you think the FA Cup had a quarter finals round in 1914? The round-of-8 matches before the semi-finals were designated (and reported as) the Fourth Round, but then what we call the quarter finals this year are properly the Sixth Round Proper (although they will almost universally be called the Quarter Finals, including by the FA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.165 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thing is, as long as you have eight teams, you can always have a quarter finals. It may not have been called "quarter finals" but that was technically what it was. The Guardian, the BBC etc all refer to it as the quarter finals, and per WP:COMMONNAME we're probably going to follow that approach. Thanks for your note, let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Query

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.

---

Is there any particular reason you still refuse to ping the DYK nominators to allow them a chance to respond to your criticisms? You've now criticized one of my hooks three times (that I know of!), all without pinging me, including after a request to do so in the future. Further, you've gotten two of those criticisms blatantly incorrect, so you're sitting at a 67% false positive rate. I'll reiterate that if your true objective is improvement of what appears on the front page, pinging authors is how you'll do it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I just look at the hooks and the articles, not the nomination templates and all those involved. I review from the prep/set listing at WP:DYKQ. When I see issues, I ping the Cwmhiraeth if they're in Prep and Stepehn if they're in a Queue. Both have said that's just fine. I'm not sure what I got "blatantly incorrect", this isn't a contest, it's about encouraging people to speak up when there are possible problems heading to the main page despite them having had two or more people review and approve them. Once again, thanks for your note, have a great Saturday evening! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You tagged an article of mine as an orphan while imminently about to go on the main page which was not an orphan (linked to from another article via a redirect), which would have resulted in an invalid cleanup tag appearing on an article on the main page. You also had {{Did you know nominations/Jeff Almon}} pulled on a concern that was very clearly a result of having no familiarity with the topic area, as every professional athlete speaks with prospective teams before drafted, and these conversations obviously factor into decision-making. As you know, DYK credits are present in every prep and queue, so you certainly don't need to look hard to find the correct people to ping. It just depends on whether your objective is maximizing the number of "errors" (loosely defined, apparently) you can point out or actually improving main page content. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I tagged an article as an orphan because orphans aren't just those with zero links, they also include those with very few links, or minor/insignificant links. I didn't "have" any article "pulled", I raised a concern over an odd and verbose and disinteresting DYK hook. Having no familiarity with the topic area doesn't seem a valid opposition to my actions as this was an article about to go to them main page where even you concede that not many people have familiarity with the topic area. My main concern was really with the poor hook, in my opinion, rather than any factual issue about conversations on planes with people sitting near other people. I don't need to look hard for anything when addressing concerns with the DYK project's continual lack of quality. It's sad to say it but all you need to do is look at this talk page to see the number of issues that have been addressed at DYK in the past three days as a result of me bringing them to the attention of admins who are concerned with the quality of that aspect of the main page. I'm not at all interested in DYK credits, nor should anyone else be prevented from making their concerns clear in fear of being berated for not observing the rules of the Wikiproject that governs such things. As an admin, it's surprising to me that you don't know that anyone with any concerns about anything inaccurate heading to the main page is entitled to raise concerns wherever and however they like. I think your last sentence sums up the biggest issue with DYK, there are so many problems being promoted to sets that normal editors can't fix. Bringing those to my own talk page is hardly an attempt to maximise errors, it's actually an attempt to contact people to who care and people who listen and people who are actually and actively prepared to make fixes. This has been a problem for a very long time, many years, and pre-dates your involvement with the encyclopedia and/or project, it's just something that needs serious work. Thanks again for your suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I won't be continuing this discussion any further. It's clear you disagree with something I've done, or said, and there are certainly other venues available to you to extend discussion over this dispute. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Placing {{Orphan}} on an article with links is unambigously incorrect. The template states "no other articles link to it". I know this has been said before, but I'll say it again; you would find many more admins willing to work on main page content if a select few didn't chase them off every time they tried. There's a reason I never clerked DYK as an admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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.