Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 29 June 2017

Have members of Arbcom stopped abusing their position?

Arb board

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

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

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

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

Ipswich Town

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2017 America's Cup

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

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

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

My talk page contains a lie.

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

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

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

ITN recognition for 2017 America's Cup

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

June 2017

Your recent editing history at 2017 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)