User talk:The Rambling Man

If you're here about a featured list candidate I've reviewed, a warm welcome! I'll keep all lists I review on my watchlist but I'm happy to be reminded from time to time that you're ready for a re-review. Be advised that if I review your list in depth then I will probably not support or oppose its promotion. I'm a Featured List director so for me to review and then support or oppose is, in my opinion, a conflict of interest. I will, however, promote articles assuming they have community consensus. Thanks for popping by! The Rambling Man

Braddles

What's your take on the last of these? --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd oppose it being written out as prose. The whole utility of it here is that it's pulled out from text. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. And, as I've implied, it doesn't seem to have a foundation in policy as an oppose. --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's just a few citeweb issues left to deal with at the moment. But we're worryingly short on actual supports. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, there's that one (mentioned by two different reviewers) and Buc's come back to you about the citeweb date order thingy that's waaay over my head to understand. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking. I've tweaked your wording for comprehensiveness and then again for accuracy. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I think we're now up to date, except for the 2 Buc points I'm seeking consensus over at WT:CRIC; 1-1 so far, so I need more input. I asked Sandy to cast an eye over rejected suggestions and see if she thinks any have real merit. --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not weigh in yourself on the outstanding issues at WT:CRIC? I actually haven't a clue what you think on the subject! --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen - and I'm not sure I have the time to deal with it right now - see my userpage. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Had a quick look. No idea why he's doing that. It's quite against the wishes of FAC contributors. If left in that shape, we'll have a slew of {{cn}} tags. I'll have to leave it with you, but IMHO doing that with the article at FAC without consultation and with no edit summaries is out of line. I don't know what's up, his attitude at the FAC is so argumentative. No-one other reviewer I've ever seen at FAC strikes such an attitude. Gotta go though. If you don't want to handle it, it can wait till I find some time. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:new quote

Actually, it's from The Simpsons. It's a Kent Brockman original from the episode Deep Space Homer. It's the best soliloquy in the history of the show. Anyway, I will be going away for a 3 week period starting June 28. You'll get to manage things at WP:FLC by yourself (and the contest as well, if it isn't over yet). I also have several FLCs going at the moment and I think most of them will be ready for promotion by Saturday. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors draft history - sorting

Hello The Rambling Man, are you able to sort the columns properly at Toronto Raptors draft history? You didn't respond after I made some changes, so I was just wondering. --Crzycheetah 21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that you actually replied to me with "don't mention it". --Crzycheetah 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of submissions for the 80th Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

I think I've addressed all your concerns. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Boston Celtics head coaches

I think your comments have been adressed by me and Cookie. --Gman124 ^talk 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• ok this time, I'm pretty sure I answered everything, and thanks for reviewing. --Gman124 ^talk 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • addressed comments. --Gman124 ^talk 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FLC poke

Hi there TRM, hope everything is good. Can you revisit the FLC of List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients when you get the time. Thanks as ever for all the time you invest in the process. Best regards. Woody (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, whenever you have time, thanks. Woody (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it now, it was a missing page break. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLC.

Oh, I'm anything but an expert on hockey (I actually just found out a day or so ago that the Red Wings are a hocky team, rather than foot/basket/base-ball). ;) · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

They were duplicated refs. Buc (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Yes but there linked again a few lines later with no other ref in between. It just seemed piontless to have them. Buc (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh? I didn't realizes it was ment to be like that. I thought they had been added by mistake and so I removed them. But if it's ment to be like that, fair enough. Buc (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

sigh fine I'll leave the nom for others to decide. Good luck Buc (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page, RM. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 21:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2000–01 National Basketball Association Eastern Conference playoff leaders

I doubt it'll pass FLC - were you planning on deleting it? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I'll see what else I can add to it. Would you mind closing the FLC as well? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

Can you please check this? A lot of editors have been in there and I don't know when/how it got messed up, but lists were added to featured articles, and the 26th as in two places, so I don't know if the list of lists is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches

Okay then, I split the sections. Would you mind a re-review? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 02:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated links in lists

Hi Rambling Man, hope you're good. As you are involved with featured lists, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction with regard to repeating wikilinks in list articles. I'm not sure if there is any policy or guideline on this - I couldn't find anything specific in WP:LIST or WP:MOSLINK. I am working on West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons (currently at peer review), and would like to know what would be an appropriate level of linking within the list. For example, if a player is top goalscorer for five seasons in a row, would it be appropriate to wikilink five times or just the first instance? What about repeated names of competitions such as the Charity Shield, where the user may need to scroll down a long way between instances? The existing football seasons lists that I've seen (including featured ones) seem to repeat the links more often than not, but I'm not sure this is always the correct approach. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A different kind of username change request

Hi TRM, an abusive account has been brought to my attention, User:Nicholas Corsellis Q.C. This is the RL name of a prominent London lawyer, who I very much doubt would be posting death threats on the talk pages of Wikipedia editors; nonetheless, the page will get a high google rank unless the username is changed. Is there a process by which this can be done? If so, how would I go about making such a request? Thanks for any info or direction. Risker (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TRM. It just seemed like a very different way of committing a BLP violation to me, and I suspect there was more behind it than meets the eye. Risker (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion limit

You're going to have to know this for your archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[[List of U.S. Open (golf) champions

I've addressed the issues you arose please have another look when you have a spare moment, thanks for your input. NapHit (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: FLCs

I'm going through FLCs now to revisit. However, I notice that you haven't given a Support or Oppose yourself to lists that you've commented on :) Also, you can just promote and archive nominations all at once instead of going one-by-one, you know ;) Gary King (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

After what happened at the last RFA, I think I'll just wait until I have enough people willing to nominate that they constitute all the supports :p Gary King (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're doing well. You'll know something is wrong when a large group of people with pitchforks and torches show up at your door. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't some of the burden for getting Supports and Opposes go on the list nominators, though? Ideally, you'd want to give as less work for yourself as possible, so 1) lists should languish too long in FLC even without consensus, which typically means they are archived and 2) to avoid this, nominators should seek a Support or Oppose from reviewers themselves. Gary King (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; if the process gets a little more tough on nominators, then eventually it won't have to be anymore once people realize that they need to cleanup a few things in their lists first before nominating them. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just had some great Greek food for dinner. Anyways, regarding RfA, after my last one which crashed and burned, I figure that if I ever go do it again, then a bureaucrat's nomination would give me the biggest boost of confidence in myself and assure me that I am fit for adminship. Even if that happened, though, I'd probably wait for a few more weeks before all of my jitters are finally gone. Gary King (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FCL List of baryons

You've listed several improvements that could be made to the list of baryons a while ago. I've made them so I wondered if you could vote either for or against it since it only received 1 vote (other than mine). Or maybe this is what you meant by "in depth review" to in your talk page header, in which case I would ask why do you not vote on lists that you gave a thorough review? These would seem like the best vote to have?

Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know you were a/the director, I though you were simply someone who spent a lot of time on FLC reviews. Not voting makes sense. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

And thanks for all your help while it was at FAC. Think I'd have gone potty without you. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A deep breath! By the end of the process, I wasn't really enjoying it too much. I think some of the attitudes at FAC were unhelpful and really sapped me. I know Blnguyen's shaping up for another attack on Miller (which is almost done, IMHO), so I might hang on his coat-tails and help out, having done a lot of the spade work. I'd love to finish Iwan - but the stats are a real problem. I suppose I could just wipe 'em. My editing pattern is likely to be changing; I can't see myself having as much time to edit over the next six months or so; I think it'll get very patchy, which kind of rules out leading FAC efforts. I've also been neglecting my duties at FLCR, which I'm gonna pick back up. However, if you get stuck into something, drop me a line and let me know. I'm always happy to help you. --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bone to pick with you

Hi. You quickfailed the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases before 24 hours had even gone by. In my estimation, that was not an adequate time for editors to have given suggestions as to what should happen to this article and to give their imput as to what would allow it to become a featured list. Of course I am biased on this issue because I've spent a substantial amount of time editing this article (I include all the lists included in this list) but I think this nom was shortchanged because this list just didn't look like what the people who patrol WP:FLC think of as a list. After all, it involves legalese. You have to know how to interpret a legal citation to understand what 35 U.S. 67 (1953) means and I suspect that the people who opposed this article didn't take the time to find out. It's an actual list despite the absence of flowery prose and interesting pictures and it deserved a fair shake. Instead it was deep-sixed. This decision has unfortunately lowered my expectations from wikipedia. I would like to see this nomination restored so it can be thoughtfully discussed and debated.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to review Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, which should provide you with some understanding of why it was speedy-closed.

The main points are Criterion 1, which is about prose. This usually falls under criterion 2 for lists, but not always. As it is, there is no prose, so a reviewer cannot base a review on this.

Criterion 2 says the lead section must be engaging and introduce the subject, define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. WP:Lead section for more information.

The remainder of the criterion are met, albeit by absence, but with so many absent criteria, it's hard to judge the merits of the list.

There is one other thing, and that is that "meets the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not". The article has no references, so that's no original research, verifiability, citations, we can eliminate straight off the bat. This list is nothing more than a Wikipedia:Category, and although I didn't participate in its FLC, if I had got there in time I would also have opposed. A speedy close at this time was the right decision, IMO, but you can still access Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases/archive1 if you would like to address the opposing issues and try again. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FL count

Hi, TRM. Hope all is well. I just delisted two from WP:FL and noticed you hadn't updated the count when you promoted the 6 lists yesterday. Tsk tsk! I updated the number correctly.. I think..! Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikpedia

I've noticed that you are an admin on this wikipedia. Please could you look at this request for unblocking. I have an SUL account but can't log into simple wiki as my IP has account creation disabled.

Many Thanks, - tholly ^--Turnip-- 07:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Has been dealt with by Chenzw, thanks, - tholly ^--Turnip-- 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

With your FLC director hat on

...could you please give me some advice? This FLC nomination appeared last night, without having had a peer review. Had a look at it and wrote what turned out to be quite a lengthy PR (yeah, I know I'm picky, but some of it was significant), which is now in my sandbox). Intended to suggest to the nominator, seeing as he mentioned in the nom that he was going to be away, that perhaps he could put it up for PR while he was away and then deal with any comments when he came back, at which point it should breeze through FLC. Looked this morning and found it already had a support, so now I don't know what to do. Should I hit it with two pages of peer review at the FLC, which would be pretty discouraging, or would it be better to point the nominator to the review in my sandbox and take it from there? yours confusedly, Struway2 (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this mate, I asked a few guys from IRC to take a look through it and they pointed out some errors, I simply forgot about a peer review, I'll be happy to withdraw it if you feel I need to. Also, I'll take a look through your sandbox. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Boston Red Sox captains

Completed your last requests. RedThunder 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: has this been promoted? It has been archived but not closed. RedThunder 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sultans of Zanzibar

Thanks for the silver medal and barnstar TRM! Quick question: don't you think this list should be listed under "Royalty, nobility and heraldry"? The sultans could technically be classified as monarchs. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

List of South American countries

Hi TRM—It will be interesting to see what the nominator follows up (he's flagged he intends to). In the end, I don't mind if you discount my Oppose if all else is fine. I just think it's a good place to raise the issue that scope might involve more than just the admissability of list items, but the information provided about them, and that if the former is a little ... well, obvious and workaday, there might be more interest on the part of nominators and reviewers in thinking through the latter more carefully. Otherwise it's just too easy, and this is meant to be our very best work. Hard to apply in the same way to many of the nominations, particularly sports coaches and the like, but where the items are huge and complex each in themselves, like whole countries, well it becomes a bit trivial without extra dimensions. The matter of scope is hard to include explicitly in the criteria—I've tried to conceive it, but concluded that "very best work" is the lynchpin for it. TONY (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish you had contacted me before archiving the FLC. I was planning to address the list's problems in the next few days. I guess the only option I have now is to renominate the list when I'm done. Would it be okay if I contacted the opposers when I renominate? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Promotions and archiving

Hey TRM, I hope all is well. I just wanted to query you about this edit [1], specifically the edit summary. I think it was Tony or Sandy who brought up the how we used to close noms as either promote or fail and how it would be better to use promote/archive. The reasoning was that it makes it sound a little better for the nominator and gives them the feeling that the list is not a failure, it was just not ready for promotion at this time. I just wanted to let you know so you can decide how you want to close the noms. On a side note, if you have time, I would love to hear what you have to say about my most recent FLC. Hope you have a good day/night. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In that specific list (which just happened to be the one I nominated), I understand. But I suppose Gonzo does have a point when speaking generally. TRM, would you mind archiving List of 2006 Major League Baseball all-stars as well? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PR experiment

Dear Rambling Man, I'm writing in hopes of enlisting your aid in a four-month experiment at Peer Review (PR). The success of the experiment will depend on finding at least 10 editors willing to review at least one article a week through the end of October 2008. The experiment will employ a streamlined review process designed to insure that every nominator who seeks a review gets one and that reviewers do not waste time doing long reviews for nominators who do not respond to an initial short review.

The way it works is this: (1) Choose any article at Peer Review that lacks a review. Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date, especially the backlog list, is still a good place to find such articles. (2) Provide a short partial review based on your initial observations and wait to see if the nominator responds. Examples of short reviews can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Foreign relations of India/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed Stelmach/archive1. (3) If the nominator does not respond, the review is done. (4) If the nominator responds, continue the review as you see fit.

The experiment will require no noticeable administration. However, if you plan to participate, it would be helpful if you posted a brief note to Wikipedia talk:Peer review to that effect.

At the end of October, we can see how the experiment turned out and whether this process or some modification of it could sustain Peer Review permanently with minimal backlogs. If you can help, that would be great. If not, that's perfectly OK. We are all tremendously busy with a lot of different projects.

I have chosen to write to you in part because you've done peer reviews from the backlog during the past four months. Please forgive the form-letter nature of this note, which is more efficient than a personal note. With respect and thanks for your hard work on many projects, Finetooth (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1948 Ashes series

Can you have a look at 1948 Ashes series for the structure/style format since you have worked on a series FA before and I have only done bios. Teh WI in 88-89 IIRC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

[2] I have addressed your concerns (hopefully). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second round draft picks featured list nomination

I was wondering if you're gonna make the archive for this article's second nomination or I do. Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't I just do it myself? Annoyomous24 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Adams discography

I responded to your concerns here. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 03:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reviewers Award
		I've been meaning to give you this for ages! I think you are one of the better reviewers at WP:FAC and appreciate all your work there. - Shudde talk 07:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of elements by stability of isotopes

There has been very little feedback lately. Should that be worring? Nergaal (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches mess

Hey TRM, as an admin, could you fix the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches mess. Annoyomous moved that page to /archive1 thinking that the nomination was archived, but when he learned that the nomination was promoted instead, he made a copy-paste move. Thanks.--Crzycheetah 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, regards, Woody (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody!--Crzycheetah 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FLC for U2 discography

Hi, TRM. I took this over after User:U2 is alternative rock was found to be a sock and banned. He is now back as User:Be Black Hole Sun and appears to have been given a final chance. I carried out some changes that were mentioned at the FLC and I asked him if he wanted it back but he said no. Anyway, I've done some, but others require more attention than I can give at the moment. If you want to archive it (it's on its 9th day), or withdraw it citing this note, that's fine. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting vandalism on my user page! Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)