User talk:The Rambling Man

PR - Brazilian Dreams

Hello TRM, I just finished with the changes you suggested for the article Brazilian Dreams, would you be kind enough to review them?. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I just red-linked the articles as you suggested. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As always, thank you so much. Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As ever, a pleasure to work with a keen and dedicated editor. Best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash

Thanks for your review, but FYI quickfailing it isn't pretty nice. As somebody with over 30 GAs I am pretty good at addressing issues, and I usually count on having a few days (week is customary) to try to work them out rather than having the article quickfailed without being able to work on it :( And looking at your comments I am not seeing anything that wouldn't be possible to address within an hour or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't quickfailing, it was failing. There are three choices, promote, hold, or fail. I felt that given my concerns over the possible merger of information from the other articles (and therefore lack of comprehensive detail in this specific candidate), this wouldn't be resolved quickly. I'm happy to work them out with you (as I said in the review I "am content to work with the nominator to work out the best solution"), but I was surprised how many issues I found in the article, especially from someone with over 30 GAs. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

While you are right that according to the rules you can fail an article, in my experience (and own practice) leaving a few days for an article author to address the issue is commonplace. If you prefer not to do it (i.e. if you prefer to fail rather than to put articles on hold), I have to request: please do not review any other of my articles. While I appreciate your helpful remarks, I still stand by my statement that failing an article without giving one a chance to address it by holding is unfair. Most other reviewers would provide similar remarks and put the article on hold, and for that reason I prefer to work with them. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I prefer to put articles on hold too, I think of my 50 or so reviews, I've only failed two, and that was because they were well below the standard required. Sorry your article fell into that category, but it's better for you to take some time reorganising the various articles which cover this particular topic into a coherent and comprehensive article, which it currently is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple weekly TFLs

What happened to Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_list#Twice_weekly?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It ran out of steam. I was all for going for two days a week, we've got more than enough material for that. Just a case of persuading the community I suppose. I'm shortly off on holiday (again!) but if you'd like to kick something off, you'd certainly have my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

My interest is three-fold (but no TFL folds). First, as the (self proclaimed) Director of WP:WAWARD, I have a natural interest in main page goings on. Second, I am now involved in helping WP:TAFI pursue main page reinstatement and am curious what would happen if we pursue one day a week and later want to go to multiple days. Third, as one of the most prolific creators of WP:GAs, I am watching Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC‎ and pondering a day when GA may have its own section of the main page. Getting back to my initial interest, and I guess most importantly, I wanted to see if there was some sort of resistance to a main page trial section expanding from one day per week to better understand how to guide TAFI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Username change

Can you please change my username? Link → Vijay ^[talk] 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Alliance, Ohio

Hi there, I see you reverted my edit to Alliance, Ohio. I painstakingly checked the references on the target articles, including the one for Yuri Lowenthal. He's referenced by Internet Movie Database (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). I've also attached a link to an article from a Cleveland newspaper. [1]. I'll revert the edit, but wanted to leave you a message first. Thanks. Richard Apple (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As there was no inline ref, I felt it inappropriate for our readers. However it's good to see you've improved the article a bit! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

50+ fatalities...

Hi TRM- I think I've addressed every issue raised with this list (including, to the best of my ability, those brought up by User:Nick-D). Please let me know if I've overlooked anything. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also attempted to contact User:Nick-D on his talk page (20 Aug 2013) to see if the reviewed books met his concerns but have not heard back.-Godot13 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. I think you did much more than enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I missed that post (I've been getting an unusual amount of talk page traffic in the last couple of weeks). Without a proper reference for the eye-catching first sentence my oppose stands I'm afraid, but it seems that consensus does not support such a view. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The first sentence reads:There have been at least 512 aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities, including terrorist or other attacks. Each and every incident has at least one or more individual references. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one. For housekeeping purposes, may I cap your comments as unresolved clearly indicating that your position is opposed?-Godot13 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, there's really no grounds for complaint about counting the number of entries in the table and then stating that there have been "at least" that many. Opposition on these grounds should be overlooked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I have capped Nick-D comments as "Unresolved comments" clearly stating they are opposed to promotion. I haven't actually seen this done before, so if that is improper please let me know. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

FL

I know that you do everything on a due course, but I was wondering why any lists has not been promoted, just curious since I am seeing lots of list ready to be promoted. I would really appreciate a response.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Catch me if you can.

...William 18:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding FL tables for monuments

Hey TRM! I'm planning to take Declared monuments of Hong Kong to FLC in the near-future. However, this editor took the bold step of changing the tables to template format. I reverted her edits, explaining to her that templates went against FL criteria and that table format (with scope rows, cols, etc.) is the correct format to use, as accessibility would be an issue. She then reverted my edit, saying the Monument database uses templates and that FL criteria is satisfied. Without wanting to start an edit war, I'd like to know – has there been any recent FL you directors have promoted that has utilized such a format? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the templates have been adjusted to comply with ACCESS. There may be other problems, but at a first glance, these templates seem to pose no real problem to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Responded to comments

If you are online, I have responded to you're comments! Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but because of you're comments my list was not promoted, so I would really appreciated if you respond to my comments. Also, about you're due course thing honestly I do not think it neccssairly, some people need their list to be promoted or not before September espacially me. When, someone responds to you're comments IMO, respond as soon as possible.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)... but of course, thanks for volunteering your time TRM and reviewing my list and so many others, it's not like there is a backlog of other lists. But hey ho, got to meet my deadline. I despair. Woody (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support promoting the list... to the backlog. Oh, we aren't voting on that?-Godot13 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Responded on SoapFan12's page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, this was none of either of you buisnesses. It does not concern you guys and I really do not appreciate this. It was a conversation beetwen TRM and I. Next time, please do not but in into something that does not concern you.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, these guys are agreeing with me, you needn't keep on asking me to revisit every possible moment. No need. I'll get back to things when I get back to them. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

FLC

Hi, I need your inputs here —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You need my inputs or you would be grateful if I took a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A look would be more than enough :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your input is demanded TRM! I mean it is all very well having a notice that says that you will get to every FLC, but that simply isn't enough. You must get to them quicker. Quicker. In fact, why haven't you commented at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup squads/archive1 which I will create in the next month or so? Damned arrogant admins... I'm half tempted to file an ANI... Harrias ^talk 16:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I always promise to content that doesn't exist. This is no exception.  ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of states and territories of the United States/archive1

Hey, thanks for reviewing this list. Just to let you know, I believe I have fixed all of the issues you noted. Toa Nidhiki05 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I'll get back to it in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of 2007 Scottish Challenge Cup Final

Thanks for taking the time to review the article I nominated. I've seen to the points you mentioned and some may require further discussion. Cheers, Cal Umbra 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, replied there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help w/ incivility, personal remarks and accusations on article talk page

Could you be of assistance? I'm having increasing difficulty trying to civilly and relevantly debate out a matter here in this discussion at the Lehigh University talk page because of incivility, unfounded and incendiary accusations and personal remarks coming from User talk:RasputinAXP.

The debate is on whether or not to include information on a highly publicized lawsuit against the university. Debate was civil and cordial in nature at first, but Rasputin has since entered and things have went south. In providing his input on the topic under debate in that discussion, Resputin starts out by making personal remarks and attacks about me, suggesting that I had a direct link with the individuals I'm editing about, as shown here [2].

I replied to this by telling Rasputin to please assume good faith at all times, that I had no direct link to these individuals and don't even live anywhere near Pennsylvania nor Lehigh University. I explained to him also that by making such personal remarks and accusations out of nowhere is totally against Wikipedia policies for article talk page conduct which states that commentary is to focus strictly on content and not other users. In response to that, user Rasputin only continued up with the personal remarks about me that have no relation to the content of article or the issue at hand, as shown here: [3] where he's then bringing up issues he has with my talk page at the article talk page.

In response, I issued this statement at the article's talk page [4], informing Rasputin that I was going to take up my grievances with him at his user talk page as his commentary was non-content-focused and personal in nature. I explained to him that his remarks and discussion of them didn't belong on the article talk page as according to Wikipedia policies on proper article talk page conduct.

As shown at Rasputin's talk page here [5], I then explain to him that his personal remarks and commentary about me at that article talk page is against Wikipedia policy, using the exact policies to back myself up as shown here:

Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks states "The purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve articles. If you have opinions about the contributions others have made, feel free to discuss those contributions on any relevant talk page. But if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there – or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia."

WP:No personal attacks states "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people. In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible."

WP:What is a personal attack states "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

In response, Rasputin told me to "go pound sand," "the hell I say," that he was once a former administrator so I'm not to quote any Wikipedia policies to him, all as shown here [6] and here [7]. Up until now, I've tried to respond as civilly as I possibly can with the user, but it seems like he's really just spoiling for a fight at this point. I don't see the debate progressing with him in any type of constructive manner as he seems determined to proceed with incivility, personal attacks, and flout policies. Please help! AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it would appear if you leave the discussion a few weeks, this "former admin" will cease to exist once again for a year or so. It's most unbecoming of desysopped admins to yell "I was an admin you know...! I know it all you know!! Don't lecture me you know!!". I'd leave the debate for a while. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol! Rambling Man, you deserve an award for that impersonation. I do believe you've got Rasputin down pat if I do say so myself. =D I'm going to take your advice and just distance myself from that debate for the time being. As it seems he's only interested in a fight with the repeated incivility and accusations, perhaps your advice of not giving him what he wants is the perfect response. Still, do you mind giving him a word of warning about his behavior just in case he's encouraged to pop up later down the line if I join the discussion? I only say that because this has happened to me in the past when I've tried to distance myself from problem editors, where unfriendly faces pop up later down the line to haunt me. Moreover, I think he's more likely to follow the rules if they're presented to him by an outside party and someone who's actually an admin as opposed to boasting of his previous status as to one. For now, I'm going to remove myself from the discussion for several weeks and respect your authority. Thank you and cheers! =D AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. I asked one question regarding your affiliation and it's a personal slight.  RasputinAXP  23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No

Hey! I don't want to withdraw it as I think I is very well written has 3 supports and the one opposed has not talkbacked after his comments were resolved. I think it is very well and a solid one.—Prashant 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit to 'List of rampage killers (Americas)'

Did you intend to remove several entries from the list when you did this: [8] ? From your edit summary it looks accidental. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, rampage killers don't just kill one person. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Good day, I see you have done a lot of editing at the Lists of rampage killers, which raises a few questions. First, what was wrong with the old titles? Second, what was the problem with the list's terms of inclusion? Finally, I have read a lot on the topic, and I mean a real lot, but nowhere have I seen that a rampage killer must kill more than one person. So, how do you come to that conclusion? Greetings. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

See spree killer which is the closest definition. Also see how to dismbiguate titles. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually no, spree killer is not the closest definition. I suggest you read the entire article, and you will see that spree killer never was meant to describe anyone who committed a mass shooting/stabbing, so rampage and spree killing are fairly different. Also, what was the problem with the table on the top right of the list of rampage killers? I mean, it's not as if that didn't serve a specific purpose, which was to make sure people realise that there are more than the 15 entries shown on the main page. I've added it, because there were quite a few people who did not realise that and complained about missing cases that were actually in one of the sublists. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

Oh, forgive me, I must have been mistaken when I read the lead of the main list which I felt sure said "This is an incomplete list of mass murders and spree killings perpetrated by individuals." i.e. mass murders (i.e. more than one) and spree killings (i.e. more than one). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a leftover of the time when it was called List of mass murderers and spree killers, and maybe I should've changed that part a long time ago, but unfortunately I don't pay a lot of attention to such details, because I have the probably false expectation that anyone instantly knows what the list is about. Fact is, mass murderer and spree killer are often used synonymously with rampage killer by the media, without caring a lot how many people were actually killed, and back in 2008 it seemed logical to use the two terms that were most commonly applied to such persons by the general populace. Of course this was fraught with problems, because in the scientific literature the terms are used under rather sepcific circumstances, and since Wikipedia is based more on what the experts say, there was a collision with popular believe. Nonetheless, until about 2011 the term spree killing was the one mostly used by the media to describe random shootings, but since the change of the title of the list in May of the aforementioned year, I see more and more shifting towards calling them a rampage. Actually using spree killer has declined quite a bit since then, and at least from my experience this is an interesting example how Wikipedia has an effect on the wider population. So, you may excuse the rather confusing naming conventions, but the whole background how to denominate this type of killer is also rather puzzling, which is kinda paradoxical, since the USA is probably the one country with the most experts and the most scientific discussions on the topic. And exactly that confusion is the reason, why I have used a German word as the basis for this list, because they are consistently using the same one for about 100 years, and there's no further obfuscation with weird neologisms such as pseudocommando. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC))

Suggest you therefore write a suitably neutral and well referenced article called rampage killer, that may help clear things up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there once was an introduction to the list, serving as an explanation of what it is about, but that has been removed a long time ago. It was merely a makeshift and the deletion didn't bother me much, because I had the intention of writing a better one anyway, and even set out twice to do just that. But the amount of work that is required to get it all right and well sourced is immense, much more than is needed for writing a simple aricle, because there is a massive amount of information out there, and a lot of it is contradictory, or fragmented over many papers. Since I am pretty much the only one who is doing some serious work on the topic here on Wikipedia, I can't expect anyone else to join the project, and that is rather off putting. Until now I've rather wasted my time with reducing the incompleteness of the lists, hoping that everybody stopping by would read the title and think "Oh, I know, it's about those guys who are shooting up places, or randomly stab people." Alas, turns out t'was a baseless hope, and I should've known that. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC))

Leave me alone!

Would you please leave me the hell alone?! Stop it! You keep stalking me! I am getting tired of it! Second of all, I was not canvassing at all! Stop it! Just leave me alone!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do so as long as you stop pestering me (or other FL directors) to promote your lists. Stay calm, and remember, there's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok good. Thanks! Also, you deleted the nomination article. For good reasons (I admited), thanks but I had a big paragraph and I would like to copy paste to my infobox therefore next time I wouldn't I have to re=write the whole paragraph with hard work and time. Can you please get back for me? I do not want this hard work to go to waste.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Which paragraph was the different from the para you posted in the previous FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Many things. But you did not answer my question, can you please get back for me? Also, I forgot to apologized for everything. I am very sorry, would you accept my apologie? I was very rude and annoying I admitted.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. Furthermore, I would like to add that there's no need to bring up a WP:OVERLINKING OR WP:UNDERLINKING issue since in my previous FLCs it was decided to be resolved due when I made the table sortable it causes more problems. Thanks for your comprehension  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much!Also, do you accept my apologie? I am very very sorry. Are we good?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC resignation

TRM, I almost don't know what to say right now. This is the worst news for the FLC process that I could imagine. You were the heart and soul of FLC, and I don't think the process will do well without you. My own frustration is growing, as you may have seen. If you saw my comments and thought they were critical of you, that wasn't my intention. They weren't aimed at you, but rather the fact that most of the other delegates haven't been active at FLC lately. I wanted to help out at FLC, not be the face of FLC like you were, and it feels like I've been the primary closer for a long period. It's not any easier on me time-wise as it is for you, and I understand your feelings better than anyone on how this affects your life. I hope you feel less pressure away from director duties and can enjoy the rest of Wikipedia better as a result. Who knows, you may not be alone in wanting to take a step back. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also saddened at this :( I apologize for not being as active as I should (real life and a bunch of work has come in the way), but I have tried to keep up again to balance the hard work you two do, and to do what I accepted to do a while ago. Now that you leave, I will abandon some other duties and take care of FLC with Giants to maintain the process like you used to. I really hope to see you come back as director again. And a confession: I started writing featured lists because you inspired me to do so, just like you have been an inspiration for me as a user. My best wishes! — ΛらむだΧかいΣしぐま²¹ 21:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 and Hahc21 have done and will continue to do a great job. Your presence will be missed...-Godot13 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be around, just not constrained by "position" nor "sniped at". Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify

Am I correct in inferring that you aren't leaving as an editor or admin, just resigning as 'crat?

I don't want to minimize your situation, but in view of resignations of Smerus and Ched and WilliamH and Collect, each of which I learned about today, I want to be sure whether this is in the same category.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just resigning as 'crat (and FL director). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Still sorry to hear it, but thanks for the clarification.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of experienced editors in just a few days. What a shame. Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

• In the media: Manning "put back in the closet"; State involvement in Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up

• Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds

• Discussion report: Arbcom election procedures, Wiki Loves Monuments, Privacy policy, FDC, and more

• Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt

• WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion

• Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey Rambling Man thank you for your comments on the flc. Your constructive comments were very helpful in the improvement of the list. I have resolved all your comments. Please talkback at the flc page. Thanks.—Prashant 04:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, when I get a chance, I'll respond there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to carry out the Endtroducing..... GA review; happy to see it passed after all these months. Your work on the site is greatly appreciated, whether it be on the GA or the FL process. Holiday56 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it's made me want to go out and buy the album again! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I, Vensatry, award you the Barnstar of Good Humor for this witty comment. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very kind, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A possible task for you

This editor[9] is creating articles that are copied from another website. Maybe you would like to have a word with him....William 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Precious

playing nice
Thank you for creating quality articles in collaboration, such as Norwich City F.C., for a wealth of featured lists, for improving the project by some 100k edits, for a user page of simply contributions, for a peaceful edit notice and for insight, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 July 2007 - "There should be no despair for you", 22 March 2009, 4 April 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)