User talk:The Rambling Man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This user previously identified as Budgiekiller.
|
[edit] NCFC
Thanks. I'm going to contact my mate about photos. I've never uploaded one and don't know how to do it. About time I learned. Is there an idiot's guide somewhere? --Dweller 09:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Managers
I noticed on the ITFC article we've not been reffing Manager stats. I've started doing this for NCFC, but it is a pain! Did we not do this for ITFC for a good reason? Please say yes. --Dweller 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a reference because there was a really easy one for me, at the Pride of Anglia website. Perhaps on of the more decent NCFC sites will have something similar? The Rambling Man 15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NCFC
A satisfying start, I think. Tons to do. The ITFC page was in better condition, methinks. Btw, I have a candidate for our next project, though the photo issue may bite. --Dweller 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tell me....! The Rambling Man 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- A cricket bio that's rather different in nature to Shep and Church. Ted Alletson. A cracking story. Literally. --Dweller 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, photo will be difficult but we may find something under the "creator died over 100 years ago" licence.... The Rambling Man 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- A cricket bio that's rather different in nature to Shep and Church. Ted Alletson. A cracking story. Literally. --Dweller 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stuff
See recent chat at ALoan's talk page. I suggest you nom ITFC as soon as we've covered all the peer review stuff. What do you think about "doing" an all-time great? --Dweller 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Funnily enough I'd just read that about a minute ago - I tend to agree with ALoan, I would thinking getting Bradman or Grace (or Goochie!) i.e. a legend, to FA would be better? But I'm not really fussed...! The Rambling Man 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Odd... I wonder why you didn't suggest Mark Benson? lol --Dweller 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, now let me think.... The Rambling Man 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Seen how the conversation at ALoan's talk page ended? Also, seen the pix I uploaded for the Canaries article? --Dweller 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ITFC_Attendances.png
Outstanding. --Dweller 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed it. I couldn't find a home for it. An elegant one, that is. Perhaps you can play with it and put it somewhere in the article? The Rambling Man 19:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Roger, wilco. While I'm at it, you can tick the last PR comment and nom it for FA, if you like :-) --Dweller 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
A lame stab at it done. Graph should be larger IMHO. The graph's data - cited? btw, the user cited as creator of it at ([1])... whoozat??!? --Dweller 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cited in the description over at Commons... The Rambling Man 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, see comments at article talk page. I could replicate that table if you like. In fact, I'll do it. --Dweller 19:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Do the table, Bigmike has made some comments on the peer review, just after I completed the FAC nom... typical!! The Rambling Man 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well! I'm finishing the table. Btw, see The Transhumanist's talk page and his comments on mine. Seems your modesty is misplaced! --Dweller 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ta-ra
Sleep well and have a good trip. --Dweller 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
This is for your inhuman anti-vandalism work!!! Your are an amazing vandal fighter, probably one of the best. Keep it up:) James, La gloria è a dio 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Ipswich Town FA
No problem. Congratulations for producing a very good article. SteveO 17:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Ipswich Town F.C.
Thank you but I still fail to understand what the problem is with entering a ref that is already in the article into the lead. Either that or remove the info from the lead since it's mentioned later anyway. Buc 18:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Binmen
To my mind, one citation in the lead makes it look like the rest of the lead is uncited, which is bad. That's why I resisted. --Dweller 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm an uncouth oaf
Welcome back. --Dweller 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks! About the citation, well if it works, it works. To be honest, a large number of FA's have got cite's in the lead, but I agree with you. Compromise, as I said to Buc. What can you do? But, regardless, great work by you over the past couple of days. Like the panorama? The Rambling Man 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great pic. Shame about the contents. --Dweller 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's one a good day these days...! The Rambling Man 06:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great pic. Shame about the contents. --Dweller 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FAC
Seen Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Vincent_van_Gogh? Check out its nominator. And Lead. Very odd. --Dweller 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, at some point it ought to be an FA but not yet... And yes, the nom. Ho hum... The Rambling Man 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NCFC
Thanks for getting stuck in. I'm about to go offline for a while (not sure how long). The Soccerbase dates for the early managers are very very whiffy - how many started their jobs on 1 Aug? I was planning to use years only as a work-around... --Dweller 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, well I'll use them for now as Soccerbase is a pretty reliable source, but if you find better WP:RS then we'll go with that. I agree, the dates seem a little strange, but never mind, for now. Any idea if you can find a list of how they all got on? ITFC only got through half as many managers, if that, and it's easy to source that info... The Rambling Man 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
|
||
Volume 3, Issue 13 | 26 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS | |
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup | WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" |
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NCFC
Nice work! I can't get VP to install. Seems it's a well known problem, sigh. Meanwhile, check out a) last two sections on NCFC talk page and b) The amazing work that's gone into Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) of late. --Dweller 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm citing dead wood. Badly. Please help. --Dweller 09:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- What in particular are you after? The Rambling Man 09:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please sir. I have a yellow book. And I'm trying to reference it properly, as reference 1. And it's broke, sir. --Dweller 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's fixed, with the
cite book
template. It needs the correct ISBN number to be added however... The Rambling Man 09:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)- Is that just a made-up one? My copy has no ISBN. Thanks for fixing. What do I do about citing page numbers? --Dweller 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's okay, Amazon still sells it so I've added the ISBN from there. This should answer all your questions - you can use
| pages = p44
as a parameter in the template. The Rambling Man 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)- That means a new cite every time. OK. And, the ISBNs I've found are all for more recent editions than my 1986 one, but never mind. --Dweller 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think ISBN for most recent is probably better than nothing. I don't suppose the book has been reworked in any way since it was first published! But if it has then we ought to remove the number for the sake of accuracy. The Rambling Man 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bugger, it looks like it was completely revamped for the 2001 edition. More searching to do methinks... The Rambling Man 09:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's fixed, with the
[edit] ITFC loans
Some jiggery pokery on the article. Can you confirm the loan moves that are being indicated? --Dweller 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ta. IMHO not always a good idea to AGF when there's no edit summary and it's an anon. Made me suspicious, but I'm too ignorant to revert. --Dweller 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem...! We don't seem to be attracting much more attention on the FA nom, did you post a notice at Wikiproject Football, I can't remember... The Rambling Man 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. Not much attention isn't necessarily a bad thing! --Dweller 10:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I agree with that! Just that with two existing opposes, it would be handy to have a couple more supports to nudge Raul's decision... The Rambling Man 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- lol. btw, seen the top line of Tony1's talk page? --Dweller 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had so I guess that means when he gets back in a couple of days he may give us more to go on... Finished most of the citations on NCFC by the way... the early history is really lacking, nothing between 1913 and the mid-fifties... Any ideas? The Rambling Man 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. Two ideas. One is the history page at the club website. The other is a nice yellow book I have at home <grins> --Dweller 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can't see how the Les Pages Jaune will help... but in that case you'll have to do the legwork I'm afraid, my shelves are woefully bereft of Budgie paraphenalia! The Rambling Man 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've looked at the history pages, they look useful. But what I did find interesting was that your boys used to play in blue and white! HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAAA.. Oh well. It was good while it lasted...! The Rambling Man 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. Blue and white halves, a la Blackburn, though interestingly, not consistent (ie some left side blue, some right). They changed their colours in response to becoming known as The Canaries. By contrast, Manchester United started off in yellow and green. --Dweller 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem...! We don't seem to be attracting much more attention on the FA nom, did you post a notice at Wikiproject Football, I can't remember... The Rambling Man 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] en-dash
Cheers for that in the Mariners article - I am hopeless with such things. Daniel Bryant 08:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure, I'm only just getting used to it myself...! The Rambling Man 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, how do you like the
80%complete records section?I've still got to add the very widely-covered record re: home undefeated streak (longest in the A-League), but you should be able to get the gist of where the section is going.Now, I wish I had a picture of Alex Wilkinson... Daniel Bryant 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, how do you like the
- Yeah, I like it... The Rambling Man 09:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Scrap the time record - I was mistaken, sadly. Well, the section still is pretty healthy. As you requested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Coast Mariners FC, this is your reminder note :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the category note - fixed. See my talk. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Scrap the time record - I was mistaken, sadly. Well, the section still is pretty healthy. As you requested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Coast Mariners FC, this is your reminder note :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NCFC
The club's back history is troublesome, as they achieved very little from 1902 to 1972, 1959 excepted! However, I've begun filling in some blanks. Will be offline for a bit now. I'll do the to-do list when I have a mo. --Dweller 11:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the message. I'm afraid I'm going to be rarely around for the next few days... RL interrupts the important stuff. Bah and phooey. Such editing I can do is likely to be trivial. If I get the chance to do anything more substantial, I'll add more back history to help counter the recentism. Sorry. Please keep an eye on the Transhumanist's talk page for me/him. Ta. --Dweller 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Popped in. Great news re FA. Made a few amends to NCFC. "See" you when I can. --Dweller 10:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, yeah, it's great news. I'll concentrate on NCFC assuming my broadband at home wakes up. Laters... The Rambling Man 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Popped in. Great news re FA. Made a few amends to NCFC. "See" you when I can. --Dweller 10:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the welcome!
Thanks for the welcome on my talkpage, RamblingMan :-) Happy to be here. Actually, I /do/ have a question--I'm going to do a little digging and see if I can find the answer for myself, but just in case you might know off the top of your head...
Is there some kind of known issue with the editing/input windows in relation to Mac OSX? Or perhaps Firefox, or the combination thereof?
I'm experiencing this thing where the cursor position is always "off"---i.e., , where I place the cursor and where I'm typing are about 4 spaces different. When I delete or backspace, letters or artifacts of letters remain on the screen, further obfuscating where I "am", so to speak, and what I'm actually deleting. It's immensely frustrating--not enough to deter me from keeping at it, mind, but it would be nice if there were a fix.
Thanks in advance, and thanks again for the welcome :)
Wysdom 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players
Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
[edit] My userpage
Thanks for the revert :) Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure. The Rambling Man 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sysop promotion
Beat u this time. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmph. Indeed! The Rambling Man 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: cn tags on Norwich City F.C.
Got it — that makes sense. I won't put too much more thought into that particular article — or the whole general philosophy of cn tags — until after my "break" is "officially" over, but thanks much for alerting me about that. Lenoxus " * " 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)