Misplaced Pages

User talk:The Rambling Man

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 11 January 2016 (rv proxying for banned harassment vandal. Whoever reinstates this will be blocked.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:31, 11 January 2016 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) (rv proxying for banned harassment vandal. Whoever reinstates this will be blocked.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Happy New Year all of you. Those of you who have a clue, so much the better and have a splendid time. For the incompetent, and there are many of you, spend some time learning how to improve Misplaced Pages. My best to you all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Operation Alf Ramsey
This editor will not rest until Alf Ramsey is a FA

Archives

no archives yet (create)


Happy New Year, The Rambling Man!

Hi The Rambling Man!, Just wanted to wish you a very Happy New Year (Sorry I originally posted a template but it looked stupid so figured I'd send a personal message instead), Anyway have a great day and thanks for your help, –Davey2010 11:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, The Rambling Man!

Happy New Year!

The Rambling Man,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Liz 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Hello The Rambling Man:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

North America 10:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

FLC

TRM, I saw your message here. If you feel like it, please do jump back into FLC reviewing and give everyone there a little push. If there is canvassing of some type going on, the best way to combat it is by getting more good reviewers on board, and you have as much to offer FLC as anybody. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to get back onto FLC reviews, especially as I'm in the mind to nominate a few more of my own. I'll see you over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

AN3 discussion

To say that I'm completely confused over this is a gross understatement. It's times like this I wonder if I'm actually speaking English and why I bother editing Misplaced Pages at all. The RfC in May only asked "can Misplaced Pages editors measure runtimes themselves or do we need citations". The close says that the discussion is moot because we can't ignore WP:NOR and measuring times ourselves is OR. The clarification by the closer specifically says the close only addresses the OR issue and not citations. He actaully said Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. That sums everything up nicely - nothing changed as a result of the RfC. I've quoted all of this, except for the final statement, in multiple places now but it's being ignored. If you'd like to see the actual statements and the RfC, they're now archived here and here. For all intents and purposes, the RfC had no effect. It did not add the requirement to cite runtimes, except in the mind of Tenebrae. Both he and Guy seem to believe that anything without a citation is OR, but that's not the case. Guy also seems to think that runtimes are likely to be challenged but that's also not the case. In fact it's exceptionally unlikely. Only one editor removes them, which I find disruptive. It's far better to challenge them with {{citation needed}}. The infobox only asks for an approximation and there's a reason for that. With films, the film normally only has one runtime at release. It's usually included on movie posters so it's easily verifiable. TV shows are different. They consist of often hundreds of episodes, and all of the episodes usually have different runtimes. Top Gear, for example, varies between 50 and 65 minutes per episode. Runtimes are stated by various sources, usually those selling DVD and Blurays or online downloads. However, runtimes are stated per episode, so an average runtime for all episodes would have to be calculated manually, and this would seem to be acceptable per WP:CALC. Alternatively, one could state a range and cite every episode or every season, which is not really a practical outcome. Regarding plots, WP:TVPLOT addresses use of actual episodes as a source for plot summaries, and quotes WP:PSTS. I'm not sure what the MOS says about films. However, as I've already pointed out multiple times at the AN3 discussion, all of this is tangential to the issue of Tenebrae's 3RR violation. Why my actions are being targeted is a mystery. Three editors reverted Tenebrae and yet Guy sides with Tenebrae and attacks me. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Horribleness in squad boxes

See this old edit. Is there a way to fix it so the new version is less ugly than it currently is? --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm using a really old browser, and I can't see much (or any) difference there, what are you seeing? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In this diff, the squad boxes at the foot of the article are filled with text. In all newer diffs, the squad boxes are full of white space. --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, not on my browser. I'll check when I get home... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 Southern Philippines terror attack ‎

If this article is worthy of being in the news section of main page, then you can nominate it.--Marvel Hero (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not, it's stale, the event happened over seven days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

RD

With respect to this edit, he's not the one who's not "heading in any direction", he's just answering the (now somewhat redundant) questions which you keep hammering him with. Why don't you drop it? —Steve Summit (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but sometimes incompetence needs to be "called out" (as you would say). Probably a good idea to remind him of that before he starts another, similarly poorly thought out and divisive thread at an already strung out talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent FL nomination comments

Hi The Rambling Man, thanks for your previous comments on the List of Georgetown University alumni FL nomination. I've tried to address all your comments and I think I've resolved them all. If you would like, please leave your thoughts there on whether they were addressed or if you have any additional thoughts, including whether you think the nomination should be approved. Ergo Sum 23:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Block warning

The behaviour of both of you at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk is unacceptable. If any of this continues, I'll block both of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to a grip on yourself and stop acting like some kind of puerile prefect. Your behaviour is utterly unacceptable and if it continues, I'll block you. Seriously, stop being a dick, I reserve the right to respond to things I'm accused of, if someone inserts accusations in hatted discussions, sorry but even you with your limited understanding of this may realise how objectionable that is. Perhaps not. Now disappear forever from my talk page and find someone capable to deal with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Please don't block Future, it will not end well. HighInBC 22:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
To whom are you talking? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize now that sounded ambiguous. I am asking you not to block Future for... whatever reason you have. It will not end well as there does not appear to be any legitimate justification for it. HighInBC 22:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. When you're an admin, being found edit-warring and then reacting against an administrative warning from another, uninvolved admin with a blocking counter-threat againt that admin is not a good move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

One day you'll understand irony. Until then, piss off my talk page and go and do something useful. Sadly it's crap like this that's undermining the community's understanding of how an admin thinks. Clearly in this case you're not thinking at all. Or there's no sense there. Either way, don't darken my talk page again with your incompetence, just keep on with the censorship. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

right to reply

Slipping in those last two comments was borderline, and while I stand by them, I certainly agree you have the right to reply. It seemed you'd gone in with "all guns blazing" at least as much as Elmer Clark had -- thus the "taking it personally" remark -- but if your opinion is otherwise, I certainly won't argue with you about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:The Rambling Man Add topic