_________________________________________________________________

As a matter of policy, TRM will respond to comments from unregistered users.

This page may be edited under all circumstances by anyone.

_________________________________________________________________

Archives

no archives yet (create)

how you doing. Went to see London Road last night at IFT, highly recommended, though where the gas works are at the end of London Road I do not know - ( one major fault easy "class" statements through gas works at the end of the road!!) - The tensions were well displayed and explored through the script and characters. Edmund Patrick – confer 05:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to catch this at some point. I knew some of the people who worked on the case, one of whom was in no doubt that Wright did a whole lot more than for which he was convicted... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although based on hearsay, assumptions and gut there are quite a few people who have those fears, not for punishment more for "closure" for the families involved. By the way, in the film, ignore the football scarf worn by the fervent supporter of the local team! Edmund Patrick – confer 05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rambling Man, I just now noticed that the series of every Boat Race article up to GA is done, and wanted to leave a note to tell you I am extremely impressed by your efforts. This must have been a real labour of love and it is to your massive credit that you have completed it. Well done indeed, sir. I hope that you are well and that you have a great rest of the weekend. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. Yes, it was really something I gave myself a target of a year to achieve and just ended two short, but we got there a day or so late! I had a lot of assistance, particularly in the sourcing and the patience of several reviewers, some of whom had no interest or knowledge of the topic, so it felt great to get there in the end! Thanks again for your note, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Rambling Man. I've noticed you removing persondata templates, (e.g. Millicent Sowerby), which I initially reverted, then accepted on your comment that the data is now at Wikidata. However, this doesn't seem to be the case for rather newly created articles: e.g. Millicent Sowerby wikidata currently does not have birthplace, birth year, or death year that was in Persondata. I realize it is not terribly difficult to manually re-enter these data on Wikidata, but it can be a hassle when there are several affected articles (you recently stripped Thomas Crane (1843–1903) that similarly lacks equivalent Persondata on Wikidata). Do you know if it is possible to automatically port the persondata to Wikidata without having to re-enter it by hand? Are there bots that automatically transfer it after a given time? Is there real harm in leaving Persondata? I'm not getting easy answers from the RfC discussion that nixed Persondata, and I know nothing about querying or functionally using Wikidata or Persondata (although I make additions to both), but it seems like prematurely removing templates represents a loss of data rather than a redundancy. Please tell me if I'm wrong, or if you know of an efficient way to merge data, but you might also want to double check Wikidata before removing future templates. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why someone (e.g. a bot) couldn't go through article history and find the most recent PERSONDATA template and copy the data across. As that RFC describes, there are probably more issues with PERSONDATA than not, so its use is somewhat pointless in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to be in an edit war with Pyrope and very non-WP:CIVIL edit summaries. WP:3RR does apply on talk pages. I just want to remind you of WP:CIVIL and, because you seem to be a very experienced editor, see if I was missing something before reporting this to WP:AN3. KSFT ^talk 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KSFT Sorry, did you read his repeated additions (that I have the full right to remove) to my talk page? Report it wherever you like. It's not my fault he used the phrase "you who is fucking up" and reverted my own talk page clearance? Why haven't you warned him for abusing my talk page and making personal attacks? I should be taking you to ANI for this gross misuse of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KSFT, don't take offence on the behalf of others as it makes you look rather silly. Here's an idea; why don't you warn Pyrope about his behaviour which goes far and beyond than that of TRM. Cassianto^Talk 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1]
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is sponsored by other admins..

I have reason to believe you are Nigerian. Yuck. 82.132.217.233 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reason to believe you are an arsehole. Next move? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...it could've been a Master Baiter [2]. A medal reserved for certain people on here ;) Cassianto^Talk 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have a category for those, at least three ugly names spring immediately to mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you set media protection for a picture, please check, if it's not a clear copy vio. That's the case with File:James-horner.jpg. The source of the picture stated the author was "unknown" and the uploader had only one edit. With very little research you get the info, that the picture is taken by Kevin Winter/Getty Images and it's not Creative Commons as stated on the picture.[3] It's a clear copyright violation.--CennoxX (talk @ dewiki) 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already noted that at WP:ITNC but since it's been floating around Commons for two years, I guess the folks over there have been too busy to do anything about it. I can't see what the issue with protecting it is, just delete it, it isn't being used on the main page after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pop in to the to-do list when you have a moment? Ta! No worries if you don't have time on a new schematic yet, that can come, but I can push on with other bits in the meantime. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is an exemption from anything that could be defined as edit-warring. You, in fact, are edit-warring. You have restored material to an article without verifying it after it has been challenged, and have done so on an article that is still covered by WP:BLP. Do not do that again. After material is removed, do not restore it unless you provide an inline citation supporting it.—Kww(talk) 21:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. Stop it now. You are actively not helping Wikipedia. You have some issue, it's nothing to do with BLP, that means you have to edit war to swiftly remove things that I'm trying to reference. Your attitude stinks and your edits are pathetic and unhelpful. Stop it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on Kww's talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next time that you restore unsourced information to a BLP after it has been challenged, you will be blocked until you agree to stop.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop threatening me, you have no grounds, I have asked you to slow down and let some of do something about your sudden crusade. Others have done similarly. Your behaviour is odd and not at all collaborative. Are you ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for intentional violations of WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

—Kww(talk) 21:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]