User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archive 26

← Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27 →

mu-SA things RfD

Thank you so much for looking at the question again and rethinking. I'm not used to this on Wikipedia! :) Cheers, DBaK (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Spain/archive1

Would you care to take another look at this nomination when you have a chance? Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 16:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi RR, can you take a second look when you get the chance? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Made an adjustment with the map, wanna check how it looks? Grsz¹¹ 15:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Image stacking

Hi RR. Not sure if you know the answer, but Bamse has an issue with the Gordon Bennett images all appearing before the table (commonplace I think), although it doesn't happen in my browser. Can you recall the way to ensure they stack nicely down the side of the table, regardless of horizontal resolution? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think there was such a fix (btw it doesn't happen on mine either but you can simulate the problem by resizing the window). You can reduce the image sizes (or use the upright parameter. Either that or force the table to a percentage width to leave room for the photos. They're the only work arounds I can think of. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 1)/archive1

I Have responded to your comments please respond. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. Ryder Cup 2010

Sorry for my incorrect edit on the Ryder Cup results, the BBC did have 3&1 displayed for a minute on the red button. That'll teach me to make rash edits! Apologies again, Schumi555 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe they can't decide! Says 3&1 again now... [1] Schumi555 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Although the beeb says 2&1 here it was 3&1 (official site) because he was 2&2 going up 17 when the hole was conceded. It's interesting because Mahan needed to win the hole to have a chance of tieing the match (meaning a USA win), but when he decided he couldn't do that (would only half the hole) he conceded the hole (which counts as losing the hole) and MacD never putted at 17. Anyway seems, as rules go 3&1 is stricly correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Bennett

Hi RR, thanks so much for your ongoing interest and digging around for the GB list. I've taken a rather harsh veiwpoint on the unofficial runnings of those years from 79 to 82. What do you think? I found some official FAI blurb which is pretty reliable I reckon... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd replyed before I read this but I think my reply would remian unchanged. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a new subsection, but seem to have trouble locating the actual 1980 result. I think the one you pointed me to was 1981... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Provided there. Also, not sure if its of use but this has a few more interesting mishaps. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to descend too far into "mishaps", I imagine that just about most entrants in this barmy competition had crazy landings etc. I think I've now incorporated the four "unofficial" years with the references you kindly found. How's it looking all round? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, my thanks. I'm beginning to flounder, I think. Perhaps I need a(nother) break! I believe I've, at least, responded, if not entirely addressed, every single comment of yours. The FLC is looking very popular indeed! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've added one more comment but am a bit ballooned out for now. I'll revist properly another. As for its popularity, I guess reviewing nearly every list brings review karma! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I still have a problem stating that those balloons were running "in parallel". The NYT ref is just a heading, the official listing of starters has 11 balloons, including two French and two German, so why would there have been a need to "cheat" the rules? The Pittsburgh ref offers nothing in that respect as far as my old eyes can see...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah if that's what you are challenging read the document linked 1983 and given in FLC response. That states that it was run in parallel and without the restriction of nation entrants. Note that the victims were from the USA (a country that already had two listed teams in the trophy) so would have been ineligible for the GBT. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Still don't really buy that there's any WP:RS out there (a Google search on "Couple Charles et Robert" has three results, two of them gasballon.be, not sure of the pedigree at all... ) And as I said, the floral and rambling language of the stories don't really lend themselves to being reliable... When you get back to this, perhaps you could show me something which is WP:RS and explicitly states that the Coupe Charles et Robert was held in parallel with the Coupe GB and then I'll finally concede the point!! Many, many thanks thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we've got crossed wires but why isn't [2] a relaible source? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That source is fine, as a story, but it's got no prominence, I checked (maybe not adequately) but the "story" seems to be just that, a story. I could find no clear indication that this has ever been published reliably nor that the author was of any pedigree. It appears that if I used this in the main article it would be synthetic. There seems to be nothing outside this supposed primary source to support the "parallel competition" thing. It's not that I doubt it was true, I just can't legitimately source it. If you're happy to say the fact that the "story" is hosted by the official website is enough to guarantee its reliability then I'll include it. I went to pains not to do that because it seemed pretty far from it... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The author wrote for the FAI here and his book is mentioned by the BBC here. Also from my ropey German backed up by Google, he is called "Verbandsfunktionär"[3] which is literally association official or something similar. Might be best for a German speaker to back this up but I think that is connected to "Deutschen Freiballonsport-Verband" which is the German Federation for Balloning (or whatever). Would this not scrape through WP:SPS having been published by other 3rd party publications (the Beeb for one)? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at my addition. If anyone else queries it, we may need to revisit... But I'm relatively happy with its inclusion now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, again. Your suggestion to include the conflict between FAI and Heinsheimer seems to have caused more heat than light. I've only got the "story" and "minutes" to go by. And the source does say "Mr. Heinsheimer has filed a petition for copyright on the name Gordon Bennett". And nothing else... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. As with most of my recent lists, they're a work of the heart, not the head. And sometimes they become far more complex than I'd imagined. I think Wikipedia has a world-class article on this subject now, unbeatable. And that's down to your diligence in reviewing, so thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

2000s NZ singles

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand)/archive1's talk page. I think I have addressed everything except the transition from Hung Medien to RIANZ sources, which I will do eventually. Can you please check that all the other issues are dealt with? Thanks Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think everything has been fixed now. Can you have a look? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Charts again

From this on User:ChrisTheDude's talk page:[4] "I know you seemed to have some interest in this before. So I thought I'd run this by you. It's been a lot of work but I think it's about ready for mainspace. I'd be interested in any comments/ideas you have. I'd be particually interested in what you think such an article should be named. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)"

Wow, that's a brilliant list! I think you're right, it's pretty much ready for mainspace - would you like me to give it a quick copyedit? I'll have a think about the best wording for the title. Are the records incomplete for Disc? That's a shame..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are incomplete in terms of what I can find – internet, purchased books etc. Each individual copy may be in the British Library I suppose but it isn't close and wouldn't be feasible for a year or so probably. Also (you just reminded me, damn) if I'm brutally honest the Melody Maker number ones 43–97 (all from the 1950s) aren't reliably sourced (same author but in an unreliable venue). Yes a copyedit would be lovely if you have time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloons (again) and {{convert}}

If you look at the most recent version of the GB page, do you get a bunch of errors? Stepping through the versions seems fine, but looking just at the most recent version seems a little messed up. No idea why...? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problems for me. Did a little skimming through template recent changes. Although I don't know what errors you were getting, this and this happened around when you posted and {{Precision}} is utilised by {{Convert}}. Perhaps that was it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I went cascading down the convert template, couldn't find anything. I'm getting "3,400 kilometers ({{rnd/bExpression error: Unexpected < operator|Expression error: Unexpected < operator|(Expression error: Unexpected < operator)|Expression error: Unexpected < operator }} mi)" instead of "3,400 kilometers (2,500 mi)", although I am using Firefox 3.6.3 under Windows so it may be that...? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I run FF 3.6.10 so doubt it is that. Tried it on Chrome and IE9 and got no problems either. I don't like asking this of such an experienced editor, have you purging your cache or, maybe, a null edit to {{convert}}? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1

Needs a revisit when you get the chance. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Buso Renkin episodes/archive1

Calling back, hope I'm not too bothersome. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, I could use another recheck, I think I fixed the problems. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect

Hi, thanks for the cleanup/protect on my userpage. I decided to start editing again—can you please unprotect my userpage? Thanks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done (hope you don't mind, Rambo). Welcome back! Dabomb87 (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of Fab 40 number-one singles

Hello! Your submission of List of Fab 40 number-one singles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The West Wing (season 6)

Hello! Your submission of The West Wing (season 6) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Top Pops number-one singles

The DYK project (nominate) 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Fab 40 number-one singles

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The West Wing (season 6)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS

First of all I think we need to start again... because you've kind of assumed bad faith on my part and WP:ACCESS' part. The project is an established part of WP:MOS that's why it is located where it is. The goals of the project were established centrally. The project was set up simply to ensure that wikipedia could facilitate the changes already made to MOS. ACCESS was set up after the changes made to WP:Wikitable and various other pages about scripting things on wikipedia. You were quick to judge the project as an idealism instead of thinking about what the project is working towards. The goal of the changes (which are a requirement) are to ensure that articles are readable for those who are hard of sight, those who use screen reading software to read the contents of a page and those who are colorblind. I've tried to be helpful by pointing out as much as possible why changes are needed. Please don't assume bad faith on my part for trying to make wikipedia better. I will be the first to say that I didn't agree at first but I've come round to the idea after realising that how can able users like you or I forcibly dictate styles/visual appearance without considering what its like for those with a damaged visual sense? I admit at times the solutions are to everyone's taste e.g. WP:DISCOGSTYLE but it is a fair and considerate change when you look at the actual benefits. I would ask you to reconsider you're opinion on the whole thing. I am just a messenger of it - not the leader nor founder of the project. I am merely trying to help others to follow what is now a rule for wikipedia. I'm sorry if you've felt otherwise. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming good faith because I've seen goalposts move (and move back) over the years. We had WP:Alt text come and go from criteria, and people still fail to follow the rules that bold and italics are unrecognisable to screen readers.^{(Wikipedia:ACCESS#Text)} The idea is noble but we can't even agree on accesibilty between browsers (Chrome fails to recognise table widths properly, IE doesn't handle CSS3 used in templates,...). That is why I think the idealistic because we can't look after (see recent WP:Village Pump (technical) archives) the 12% of users that use Chrome[5] compared to the 0.8–3.4%[6] of users that use screen readers. Please don't patronise me about what WP:ACCESS is. As an FLC regular I'm well aware. Please also note that http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H63.html says "For simple tables that have the headers in the first row or column then it is sufficient to simply use the TH elements without scope." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd still like to apologise to you. Its certainly not my fault because I had been led to believe that wikipedia was making a concrete move towards WP:ACCESS. I have been involved with the project only since June 2010 and I got involved because I was fed up of the number of changes being made without accountability or without a transition mechanism. I think this whole sorry affair that is WP:ACCESS highlights how divided wikipedia is. I don't even know who made all the latest raft of changes but all i know is at every level I've been accounting this issues and not really knowing what to do. Assuming that WP:ACCESS was now stable is the only reason I've made the comments I have, which I have now retracted by the way. Please don't shoot me as an ill-informed messenger -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your swift retraction and apology is commendable. I don't doubt you were trying to improve the wiki and my lack of faith was unfortunately directed at en.wiki itself and the fact that I've seen this kind of thing too many times before. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, WP:Alt text was a failure because it was based on a sole editor's opinion, who didn't care to listen to accessibility experts. It's been fixed now, and I'm encouraging a more rigorous approach involving experts.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable about accessibility and technical things, you'd better discuss it with me (or maybe RexxS for example). I'm the one who wrote Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial - which was reviewed by an accessibility expert. And I updated several pages.

I'd be happy to reply to you in details, but it would be best to continue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial. This technical and complex discussion will needlessly confuse editors. Providing a summary to editors is sufficient. And I'll ask the accessibility expert for more explanations about the particular issue you are raising. Only in order to best explain it to you. I'm certain what we are doing is not in vain, despite what is written at WCAG20-TECHS, H63. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Help please!!

Hi there RR, VASCO from Portugal here,

I really need your assistance with this issue, which threatens to escalate. I have tried to discuss this with the other user, to no avail. His reversions and additions in Unai Emery are poor overall, i improve article overall (reverting POV, replacing dashes, correcting box stats per LINK#1, correcting language) he reverts everything, without any explanation but the obvious.

Also, i have already been insulted severely over this article after i protected page (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=324464489&oldid=324303890), this is seriously getting over the top, out of hand. Some inputs please.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry to have - apparently - bothered you, i'll deal with this to the best of my abilities. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rambo's Revenge. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 03:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: FTRC

Yup, that's exactly what I wanted to do. Thanks! :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

A note

Hello, Rambo's Revenge. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PS edit summary

Hello, Rambo's Revenge. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFPP

I apparently tried to revert the recent vandalism at RFPP at exactly the same time as you, but in a different way (I went back to my version of the page, clicked edit and then saved) and my edit went through after yours so it may have looked like I was calling your edit vandalism. Probably obvious what actually happened but just wanted to make sure it wasn't misconstrued. Some guy (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You know that your edit just undid your own change right? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I guess I clicked the wrong revision. Thanks. Some guy (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Atomic Kitten discog FLC review

hey, could you have another look at the above? thanks Mister sparky (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Celine Dion singles discography FLC review

Hi, could you review it again? I have fixed the article. Thank you. max24 (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope). max24 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you support the article the way it is now?. max24 (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

All fixed. max24 (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the references. Hope you can support the article now. Thanks for your help. max24 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969)

Hello! Your submission of List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 13:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)