Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 3 February 2015

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Want or need a QPQ?

You or anyone else who stalks your page, may I present Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey for your review? Montanabw 07:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I've wanted to use that hook ever since I thought it up - actually thought of the hook before I ever started writing the article! Montanabw 04:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1904

The article The Boat Race 1904 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1904 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1907

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Boat Race 1907 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've completed this review here: Talk:The Boat Race 1907/GA1. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -- Caponer (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The article The Boat Race 1907 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1907 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, TRM. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Premier League hat-tricks – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 16. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1909

The article The Boat Race 1909 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1909 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I've completed my review of this article here: Talk:The Boat Race 1909/GA1. Job well done! I only had a few minor comments/concerns. -- Caponer (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, great job on this article. I've re-reviewed the article and passed it to Good Article status! Congratulations, sir. -- Caponer (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings

On 27 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that one person was injured and six died in a killing spree in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

R. K. Laxman

I have removed the unsourced tag you had put here. Please tell if it is still required. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1910

The article The Boat Race 1910 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1910 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tennis biographies

Hi Rambling Man,

I know you said it was not encyclopaedic to keep adding nicknames to tennis threads. To be honest, I thought I was just adding to the useless trivia already out there (https://en.wikipedia.org/Agnieszka_Radwanska says Agnieszka "Aga" Radwanska, https://en.wikipedia.org/Sam_Groth says Samuel "Sam" Groth, yeah I think you get the picture.)

To be honest, although the info I was adding is not necessary, I can't see how it detracts from the article. Look at actors, for example, Bob Balaban's page says Robert Elmer "Bob" Balaban. I think adding nicknames adds to the identity of the person and also assists with their naming preferences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I would like to be.

Rovingrobert (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, could you please reply? I can see you have been online replying to the posts of others.

Rovingrobert (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkpage stalker here - I'm sure TRM will get back to you soon. It doesn't look like there's an urgent need for a reply. We're all volunteers here and our time is precious. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think, in general, there's no place for nicknames in encyclopaedic articles, particularly not in the lead. Some inboxes provide an entry for them, and sometimes it may be appropriate to put them in the personal life section, but otherwise we just stick to the encyclopaedic facts of the matter, regardless of what's happened in other articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

GA stuff

I put Quadrophenia up for a GA review - it doesn't appear to lack anything that Tommy and Who's Next has; maybe the plot summary could be longer, but looking at my book sources I reckon I've got WP:DUE weight right on it. I would like to put together a sample of sheet music showing the four themes, as soon as I find a good program to do it.

Cassetteboy needs a bit more of an expansion to get close to GA and some of the tagged content needs to be sourced. Actually, you're an admin aren't you? Could you quickly have a look at Inside A Whale's Cock Vol 1 and see if there's anything salvageable from it? My guess is probably not, or it wouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Ritchie333 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I'll take a look in due course. As for the Whale's Cock, nothing much at all, just one source: Review on "New CD Weekly". Nothing else... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FLC request

Hi, could you spend sometime reviewing this nomination? —Vensatry _(ping) 16:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I sure can. I will endeavour to get it done today, but if not it may be tomorrow if I'm lucky to get the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1905

The article The Boat Race 1905 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1905 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Award

	The "The Boat Race, Whatever, Award"
	I don't give a stuff about The Boat Race, but your Herculean efforts deserve recognition. So I award you with the inaugural (and, let's face it, probably final) The "The Boat Race, Whatever, Award", complete with a picture of an old boat. And a fluffy kitten. Because it's the interwebs. Dweller (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers dude, cracking on! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As a person who meanders by here occasionally I think this may well be one of the most honest awards going round! Edmund Patrick – confer 11:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK contender in its infancy?

Manot cave --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1912

The article The Boat Race 1912 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1912 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1913

The article The Boat Race 1913 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1913 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not helping

Any reason why you reverted my edit? I want to know now why you think its helping the situation? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See the edit summary. Stop trying to hide the situation under the carpet. This reverse PC crap needs to be resolved, to tacitly compare the actions of a male editor to a rapist needs resolution, not sweeping under the carpet. The actions of some of the editors here to see it simply "excused" is, well, inexcusable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been to ANI twice and has not had a resolution, all I am seeing are heated editors and one who has already stood firm on his position. So the way I see it either everyone can continue to push things and risk blocks from other admin or this goes to WP:ARBCOM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I care too much about your opinion, I don't even know you or what you do or have done here. There's a really easy solution which is that OrangesRYellow retracts her vile accusation and apologises for it. It's really simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What you can know about me is that I am an editor that has had enough of all of this, I know what you want to see happen but I doubt it will so rather than push the issue and get more editors involved I feel it better to pull back and when the dust settles then ask orange this question. Anyways its up to you, but from what I have seen so far nothing has been accomplished and it has been over a day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1914

The article The Boat Race 1914 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1914 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1920

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Boat Race 1920 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1911

The article The Boat Race 1911 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1911 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eurodyne -- Eurodyne (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1921

The article The Boat Race 1921 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1921 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1922

The article The Boat Race 1922 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1922 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cricket list in need of a review

Hi. Hope you're well. List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket FLC: Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket/archive1 looks in pretty good shape but is unfortunately lacking in reviews with only about 2 weeks left before archiving. I was wondering if you'd be up for/free to do a review? Kind regards. Cowlibob (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look over the next couple of days. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1923

The article The Boat Race 1923 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1923 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1920

The article The Boat Race 1920 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boat Race 1920 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard von Weizsäcker

Hi there,
Will I not be credited for Richard von Weizsäcker ITN?  - The Herald (here I am) 15:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

OK re 'censorship.' But this isn't the first time you've deleted a comment of mine that you apparently disliked. I would guess there've been half a dozen. Sca (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Supply six diffs where I deleted your comments or retract the accusation. I will not tolerate any lies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, TRM, how about dropping the officious posture and wounded tone? I was just about to say thanks for adding my comment back in.... Do you enjoy feuding with people? It's not worth the aggravation. Sca (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing officious or wounded about asking for evidence of your accusation that I deliberately censor you by removing comments that you have posted because I dislike them. So, get to it or remove the comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If Sca can't or won't provide the diffs, I think any reasonably minded person would assume that he's made a mistake. We all make mistakes. The pleasant thing to do would be to apologise, Sca, and for TRM to accept it and then you can both move on, knowing you've proved yourself to be good, decent people, which I am sure you both are. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary is disingenuous. There's no pressure, just a request to substantiate the claim or remove it. Secondly, it's not related at all to any administrative action. Talk about spinning things yet again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't cite chapter & verse, so I'm deleting my comment here, simply to close the matter. Sca (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete the opening comment here too. And don't use disingenuous edit summaries to claim something that, once again, isn't true. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

TRM, please never under any circumstances post on my talk page again. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sca, please never under any circumstances post lies about me anywhere on Misplaced Pages ever again. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No comment. Sca (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sca, no the answer is "sorry that I left deliberate lies about you in multiple locations across Misplaced Pages and I won't do it again". Got it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:331dot, if you want to "move on" I suggest you do so properly without sneaking in round the back to perpetuate the debate. Clear enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Boat Race 1906

The article The Boat Race 1906 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Boat Race 1906 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Message to anyone watching this page, for whatever reason

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.

I recommend a perusal (or re-perusal) of User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values. And, for good measure, WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY. Public information broadcast ends/ --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the damage however has been done by the likes of User:331dot who stir up a mess of bad faith and then wander off. Thanks for trying... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm genuinely asking you what bad faith assumption I made in the hope that I can correct it in the future. I really do want to get along with you and others. If you don't wish to tell me, I will take your reversion of this comment as an indication of such. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

My analysis of the answer to that is on your talk page. --Dweller (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: I didn't assume his comment was sarcastic, that's just how it appeared to me based on my personal experience and knowledge. I accept TRM's word that it was not, but I still think it would be nice for him to acknowledge that not everyone is going to understand his comments the way he might want and to grant people some leeway in that area. I hope I am not being held responsible for the discussion of the edit conflict which I did not ask for. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reap what you sow. Now leave me alone and get back to the clique who just don't understand a word I'm saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer

You really should modify your user rights to add Reviewer, I don't know why any sysop should have their edits reviewed on pp-pc1 pages. Or maybe there's a programming glitch, in which case it's beyond my understanding. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind, but it is odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

These things should really be rolled into +sysop, but I've done it anyway. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)