User talk:The Rambling Man
Status: Unknown 
|
The Rambling Man (and The Rambling Lady) are going round the world... Two weeks to go....
Normal service will (hopefully) be resumed late March 2009. |
|
no archives yet (create) |
Enjoy your holiday
Is there anyone taking your role while you're out? Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- What role Miguel? If you mean FL director then yes, that's already happened - User:Matthewedwards. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Tennis date delinking
Hi Rambling Man, thank you for wishing me luck! However, I hope to not need luck, lol. I understand that there have been some issues in the past, some of them possibly with Tennis expert, but I also feel that it isn't anything which can't be resolved. The previous discussion which you linked to is very long and even descended into some personal grievances, and I hope that a fresh call for simple support and opposes can avoid that whole mess. Perhaps I am being naïve, but I intend to approach the issue with good faith all 'round, and with the right touches, reach consensus without too much conflict. Personally, I do not either agree or disagree with the delinking/linking of dates and common terms – I can see the benefits in both methods. What I do know is that the current state of edit warring over the debate is intensely counter-productive, and I only wish to faciliate a firm, WikiProject Tennis solution, and I think that Tennis expert is in favour of reaching a decision, too. Let's see how it goes and assume the best from everyone, :-) Maedin\talk 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The list is getting dangerously close to being archived as it's been up for nearly two weeks. Could you visit your oppose when you have the time? Gary King (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Help
Hi there. I'd really like some help with an issue that has plagued Wikipedia for quite some time. If you're too busy in real life, just let me know.
I'll go straight to the point. You may consider the incident rather trivial, but it's implications aren't.
Do you believe that it is fair and effective for a group of 10 or so editors to effect a change in the way every single Wikipeia music articles are edited and constructed? Editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music feel that they have the right to discuss and change the way articles and templates under the project are set up, showing wanton disregard for the views of anyone else outside the project. They ignore the fact the changes they make to their templates affect all of Wikipedia, since we have to use these templates, and seem not to care that an increasing number of editors oppose the change.
A few days ago, the editors had a discussion amongst themselves (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Out_of_hand, Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre_field and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music) and concluded that it was o.k to remove the genre field from all infoboxes in the music articles (artist and album articles). Their rationale: it reduces edit warring. However, the genre field is extremely useful to these articles, and even if they are removed, there is nothing barring editors from changing any genre related info in the body of the article.
The point I'm trying to make is that it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, to have a group of editors — and such a small number at that— decide what goes and what stays in every music article. What we have is them saying is this:
- "It is compulsory that you use our infobox in every music article. And since it is our infobox, a contingent of 15 editors have decided to control the way every article is set up. We get to decide what goes and what doesn't go in all of the articles regarding music on Wikipedia."
I really can not see the logic in this. Wikipedia should not be governed by these people. Is there any way you can help? Orane (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
List question
Hi TRM, before you go circumnavigating, would you be able to answer a list question for me please. I am working on articles for the seven covered bridges in Covered Bridges of Bradford, Sullivan and Lycoming Counties with an eye to a Featured Topic. Three of the individual bridge articles are FAs, and I am pretty sure I can get three more there, while the last bridge has so little material on it that I think it will be a GA. Anyway, my question is: is there a lower limit on the number of items in a list for FL? There are only seven bridges on this list Covered Bridges of Bradford, Sullivan and Lycoming Counties, but it seems like the ideal lead article for a future FT. I hope my question is clear. Thanks in advance for any advice, and have a blast on your trip! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Tennis articles
I'm willing to help, let me know any particular article you are working on. Although, I'm a bit wary of Sharapova article since I'd be entering into the middle of long standing debate. LeaveSleaves talk 12:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
BBHS
Sorry to bother you with this, but Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked without the ability to edit his own talkpage after a vandalism spree. Despite the behavioural problems, he has contributed more quality content than the vast majority of editors, and I hope, however naively, that this is not the end of his editorial tenure. You probably understand his psychology best, could you take a look at his latest contribs? Is this beyond redeemable i.e. ban territory? the skomorokh 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)