BacklogEdit

 
This editor is an Grandmaster Editor FC and is entitled to display this Mithril Editor Star with the Neutronium Superstar hologram.

Daily checklistEdit

WikiCupEdit

Submissions

Me me meEdit

  • 1st across Wikipedia for FLs (111)
  • 28th for FAs (35)
  • 14th for GAs (197)

UndergoingEdit

PendingEdit

ArticlesEdit


TopicsEdit

ToolsEdit

  • Playoff source for Derby, Leeds, West Brom, Villa
  • "Play-Off Final History & Stats". Sporting Life. 25 May 2015. Archived from the original on 9 October 2016. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  • W3C scopes example
  • DYK submissions and review links
  • <ref>{{Cite web | url= | via = [[Newspapers.com]] | work = [[The Guardian/Observer]] | accessdate = XX January 2021 | title = TITLE | first = FIRST | last = LAST | date = DD MMM YYYY | page = PAGE | url-access=subscription}}</ref>
  • <ref>{{Cite web | url= | via = [[British Newspaper Archive]] | work = [[WORK]] | accessdate = XX January 2021 | title = TITLE | first = FIRST | last = LAST | date = DD MMM YYYY | page = PAGE | url-access=subscription}}</ref>

ReadyEdit

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
This is for your amazing signature. Seemplez 11:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Seemplez cheers, much appreciated! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem! Seemplez 11:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2003 Football League First Division play-off FinalEdit

The article 2003 Football League First Division play-off Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2003 Football League First Division play-off Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2001 Football League First Division play-off FinalEdit

The article 2001 Football League First Division play-off Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2001 Football League First Division play-off Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for J. J. Williams (rugby union)Edit

 On 29 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article J. J. Williams (rugby union), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1999 Football League First Division play-off FinalEdit

The article 1999 Football League First Division play-off Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1999 Football League First Division play-off Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletterEdit

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is   Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by   Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points.   The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with   Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were   Hog Farm (submissions),   HaEr48 (submissions),   Harrias (submissions) and   Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup AwardsEdit

 
Awarded to The Rambling Man for being one of the eight finalists in the 2020 WikiCup and coming third.
 
Awarded to The Rambling Man for the strongest contribution of GA reviews (100 in Round 2) in the 2020 WikiCup

Congratulations! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Great work! 100 GA reviews in a month was phenomenal work. Well done for finishing third, and I hope you had fun! Take the crown next year? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm in it for 2021, but who knows how much spare time we'll have?? Cheers for the note, and well done yourself. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn't have time for this for this year's competition! I'm amazed I stuck the course, I had no more content left. You've got it in you to wipe the floor if you had the time! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, FAC is so slow, it's anyone's guess really. Could fall down to a moment of bad timing or a day when the co-ords aren't promoting, and it's game over. That's probably something that needs to be addressed next year really, especially as we saw this year Gog's last second (alright, last-half-hour) promotion could have completely over-turned things. Relying on other processes makes this a bit of a hit-and-miss situation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly that happened last year (or I'd have won two years running now). But, that is part of the game. I knew I needed to time my nominations to get the four in the two months (which means nomming around 20 days into the first month of the previous round). FA and DYK are the only two parts of the cup that work like this though, you can just write 100 GAs and nom them all for one round, and so long as you generate enough interest, you'd score 3,500 points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
November
 

... just thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In appreciationEdit

  The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the vast number of thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
+1 —valereee (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Very kind of you both, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You do drugs. F**k you now and foreverEdit

Stop doing drugs.

I promise I'll try. Thanks for your concern. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I like your style, your response was so ... appropriate. By the way, Wikipedia is my drug of choice, and no, I'm not trying to recover.   davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Christophe DominiciEdit

 On 26 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Christophe Dominici, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement Quality Predictions FeedbackEdit

Hi The Rambling Man! Based on the discussions on the Featured articles review space, I've made an initial posting of minor POV issues on two articles, one a Featured article candidate and the second one in start class. I would like to know the best way possible to iterate over the feedbacks about the predictions and feedback regarding the way of postings themselves. Also, really appreciate your support in taking the time to help out with this! Sumit (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1997 Football League First Division play-off FinalEdit

The article 1997 Football League First Division play-off Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1997 Football League First Division play-off Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2020 EFL League Two play-off FinalEdit

The article 2020 EFL League Two play-off Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2020 EFL League Two play-off Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enactedEdit

A motion regarding The Rambling Man case at Requests for Clarification and Amendment has been enacted after it reached majority support. The motion is as follows:

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted
Welcome back to reviewing my articles, Rambling Man, without me permitting (and forgetting to do)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Unanimous support from the Arbs who opined no less! Thanks. I'll be nominating one later today, so I'll look for you for the QPQ! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I may be to busy to review today, writing Fünf letzte Tage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I meant I'll review one of yours!! No worries. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:, wow! I didn't even know of the existence of half of these forums. I would have been more than happy to write in my statement of support, if at all required. Just the brakes that you apply by way of quality control for the homepage is absolutely commendable. Thanks for all that you do at the mainpage in general, but, specifically at WP:ITNRD and WP:ERRORS in particular. I am sure WP:DYK will benefit (again) from your attention to detail. Happy holidays!
Cheers, no worries. Do your best to avoid such forums, they are a deadly timesink and usually an opportunity for anyone with any kind of grudge to come out swinging! Thankfully Arbcom have given me a chance here and I won't be letting them down. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a barnstar!Edit

  The Working Man's Barnstar
For your hard work reviewing RDs and blurbs. You've done an amazing job and I cannot wait to see what influences you will make on this site in the future. Have a very Happy New Year! TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
TuckerTVG cheers, much obliged. Happy New Year to you too. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man No problem. Keep doing what you do! TuckerTVG (whaddya want, loser?) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A new year's offeringEdit

Happy new year! Just nominated Hated in the Nation for GA if you're interested. I'm resolving to get a bunch of these done in the next few weeks but no pressure if you can't take them all. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. I'm heading over to GAN to nab it! And I will take 'em all... (if you don't mind of course) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely, looking forward to it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
And on the twelfth day of Christmas thirteenth day of Black Mirror... White Christmas (Black Mirror) is now up for GA. — Bilorv (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Next up: Arkangel (Black Mirror). — Bilorv (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1992 Football League Second Division play-off FinalEdit

The article 1992 Football League Second Division play-off Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1992 Football League Second Division play-off Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Penny for your ThoughtsEdit

Can you please look over the newly expanded leade for Public Works by Daniel Chester French and tell me what you think? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero it's looking very nice. A couple of thoughts: (a) I think the title shouldn't capitalise "works" (b) some of the claims in the lead will need inline references, particularly those posthumous completions. Otherwise it wouldn't look out of place at WP:FLC. Good work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Thank you! --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Tomorrow's OTDEdit

Hi TRM -- Genuine question, really not being snarky, but why don't you edit tomorrow's OTD yourself? Espresso Addict (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Too controversial. And I prefer to ensure I haven't misinterpreted something that was there. And usually at the time I do the checks, I'm barely awake. A good portion of the errors I report need offline sources to which I have no access to verify, they are often sorted out by others. Also, if other people can spend time finding alternative sources (e.g. like for Qazi Hussain Ahmad) that's great too, just not something I have time or energy to do when I have so many other projects on the go. I just want to ensure that flagrant errors (in my mind) are flagged up in case someone wants to/is able to do something about them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I know what you mean about editing while barely awake, I tend to do a quick sweep of Errors before retiring, and I'm usually too dull witted (then) to do more than the most obvious fixes. Don't tend to bother with the requests that aren't fully protected, which is why I was wondering... Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

CheersEdit

Not sure I handled it the best way, but there's an SPI open against this new sock of Goofdawg here. – PeeJay 12:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

1992Edit

Nice work on this. I must say, he did go down very easily for that penalty (football cliché alert!). Decent strike, though. Good to see some half-forgotten names from that era: Mike Whitlow, Scott Sellars, Ian Ormondroyd... Also good to see that 1991 is next, although I'm not sure I want to remind myself in too much detail about that disappointing afternoon!!! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hassocks5489 thanks! If you'd like to help or have anything that could be added to 1991 (disappointment notwithstanding!) that'd be great. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a comprehensive history of the Albion written just after the event (1993 in fact) by our club historian, but unfortunately I don't have a copy. Pending reopening of our libraries, I'll have a look on The Argus website to see if they have anything in their online archive. I'll put the article on my watchlist and make any changes I'm able to. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hassocks5489 Hey, I'd really appreciate that, thanks. Details on the match are really sparse, can't find a complete video anywhere, no matter how RS, and books seem to be a premium... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ronald AtkinsEdit

 On 4 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ronald Atkins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia FACEdit

Hi there, TRM! Dimple Kapadia is back at FAC. You must remember the previous one which ended up becoming a mess you know why. I've spent the past few months improving it - if you could have a look at it and consider leaving comments, I'd be really grateful. Best wishes, ShahidTalk2me 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Shahid, I'd love to but last time I got involved there, one of the "FAC Firmament" got too involved, derailed everything, and started to review my reviews which made for such a toxic result, I'm not sure I want to go back there again. Perhaps I can give you some comments outside the FAC itself so it doesn't attract the kind of behavioural issues I saw before? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi TRM, thank you for the kind reply. Honestly, I do not think you need to give too much attention to what that user has to say. I'm not sure they'll even return to this page again. Last time, when the FAC was archived, they were warned on their talk page for the behaviour by the closing coordinator, and told that the nomination was archived in spite of them rather than because of them. Anyway, if you find yourself unwilling to get into it, I'd appreciate your comments anyway, preferably on my talk page. Thank you! ShahidTalk2me 10:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I will do that. Unfortunately that user is the kind that some of the "old school" who some of the "establishment" at FAC give free passes to, and it's precisely that kind of thing which drives people away from the process. I'll give it a look over in due course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Well that needs to be changed, and I am not excluding ANI as an option in case such behaviour is repeated on any FAC, not just this one. No one should ever succumb to such disruptive conduct. Thank you for any help you're willing to give. ShahidTalk2me 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The response you got elsewhere simply underlines the problem. There's no divine right for suggestions and comments to be constrained to any specific venue. FAC is owned by the community, not the other way round. Bigging up a user who actively attempted to drive me away by "reviewing my review", publicly ridiculing my comments, etc, well, that speaks entirely for itself. Oh and if "discuss" means "railroad a completely unrelated topic, criticise, belittle and treat like a child" then yes, that happened too. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
Can we cut out the sniping and snark directed at others, please? It doesn’t make anything better when discussions need to be done. Ironically, this is the same sort of behavior that derailed the first FAC, and it’s beneath the usually useful and helpful editing that you promised to aspire to,TRM. And that I had been seeing from you...which led me to support the lifting of you topic ban from DYK. I don’t expect everyone to get along like best buddies, but it would be nice if we could at least leave the sniping and snark behind. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I think what's best here is an IBAN between me and SG because I firmly believe that someone who thinks a bullying editor who keeps records of his reviews of other reviewers' works is better for FAC than my contributions to the reviews there is never going to be satisfactory. Coming to my talkpage after a completely unrelated topic ban discussion was purely pouring oil on the fire, completely unnecessary. I'm getting fucking tired of the word "snark", that's ALL I HEAR from those users. Meanwhile I'm just trying to get on and create content and review other people's content. All this bullshit background process ownership crap is a total timesink and of no interest. Bullying reviewers should be prevented from engaging, not encouraged and held up as paragons. I offered to help out an editor who requested my input here. I reminded them the shitshow that was the previous FAC including the horsehit behaviour of some, and offered to help in literally any other way I could while avoiding that FAC. I think that is bona fide decent. That SG decides somehow this is subversive or undermining the FAC dominion or whatever, that's not my problem. I spent 2020 doing content and reviews. I intend to spend 2021 doing the same. I don't need the continual berating for not taking all the bullshit sent my way like a good little boy, I can stand up for myself and I will. So, TLDR: let me just get on helping others and creating content. Cheers. (PS at no point is any of this directed at you Ealdgyth). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Gah, Ealdgyth's ping went pong. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ealdgyth meanwhile, you'll let her continue to slag me off? The firmament, eh? F&F's "misbehaviour" went completely unaddressed and he is lauded. My reviews are mocked and "reviewed" and I'm the disruption? IBAN calling. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
am I either of yours mother?if you want an iban...go request one. I asked both of you to try to dial it down. I kinda expect both of you are adults and can either take advice or not. I’m not going to put myself further into a gigantic mess when it’s obviously a clash between personalities. I’m too old to fall for that trap...I’d appreciate it if this sort of thing didn’t happen. But the. best way to resolve it is by directly addressing the issues with each other, instead of sniping at each other. I can’t. Are either of you behave better, and I’m entirely too involved to impose sanctions, so all I can do is ask for better behavior. I think you both want the same thing, article improvement...and I’d prefer If you both tried to keep that in mind. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't tell me, I know I'm doing other things to improve Wikipedia. I dialled it down to zero, she carried on. All this "disruption at FAC" claim is utter tripe and I'm sick of it. Now, I'm going to improve some articles. Honestly, if you don't want a response to your comment here, don't comment here. It's sad that it's come to it, but there's no trap here, just looking for equality and that's so evidently missing it's untrue. All Wikipedians are equal, just some are more equal than others. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes for terminologyEdit

Terms which need to click through to understand (which have been supported):

AcamptonectesEdit

BajadasaurusEdit

Whitehawk CampEdit

Islanders (video game)Edit

1997 Football League First Division play-off FinalEdit

Terms which I don't think required inline footnotes for every usage in every FA I produce but which have elicited an oppose:

FAC reviewingEdit

"I'm curious how this approach isn't being applied evenly across all FACs here, but never mind."

I honestly try to apply the same standard - the one in the criteria - to all of the articles I review. I am not saying that I succeed and I suppose that I am more inclined to assume a term is broadly understood the closer I am to a topic. This is one reason why the FAC coordinators pretty much require a non-MilHist regular to support all FAC nominations before promoting. And, more patchily, in other "specialist" areas. To this end I have started adding the boilerplate below when applicable, most recently to my own nom.

This nomination could do with a prose review from someone who is not a military history regular, in particular to check for jargon, recherche language and general understandability to those not regularly accustomed to the specialist terminology of military history articles.

Back to your article, would you be interested in me generating what I would consider the minimum necessary to get it over the line? It is ridiculously close. You can take it or leave it, but frankly, if you are inclined to not even consider a proposal, which is the feel I have been getting, I would rather use the time for something else.
Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You've opposed on three plain English terms. I'm not looking to add footnotes for basic English words which anyone with a high-school education could understand. On the flip side I'm seeing recent promotions and supports for articles which, even with a couple of degrees from Cantab. (I know, don't blame me, my mother suggested it was the "better Blue") I don't understand, even close, without clicking through. I'm comparing and contrasting the real need here. And it's very disappointing that with all the other reviews from those who know nothing about football (both this one and others similar), no such comments were raised. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. The offer was largely so I could demonstrate that I don't want footnotes added. I dunno where you have got that idea from, but if it is from something I wrote you have misread or I miswrote. So it goes. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, not really "fair enough", as it seems that there's something of a point to the wholesale oppose by you on this. If this really is something that has become a "thing" now, I am shocked to see the recent promotion of Acamptonectes which has loads of non-English terms not explained, just linked. That was okay for promotion, yet three plain English terms elicits an oppose from you?? There has to come a point when the "general population" can be assumed to be represented in these matters, and I feel it is. In Acamptonectes for example, it is way away from understandable without clicking through yet it's passed? I think any reasonable person can see the huge discrepancy here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1987 FA Cup FinalEdit

The article 1987 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1987 FA Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 EFL League Two play-off FinalEdit

 On 13 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 EFL League Two play-off Final, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2020 EFL League Two play-off Final is believed to be the first competitive match played behind closed doors at Wembley Stadium? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 EFL League Two play-off Final. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 EFL League Two play-off Final), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The PhoenixEdit

A "mythical" bird, whose essence is reflected in real life. Yeah, just thought I'd share that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

An (admin) goat for you!Edit

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia! I'm sure everyone appreciates it!

Colonel Hotdog (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Feeling faint already: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"The condition is not harmful" - if I fell off a swing like that, it'd be A&E, COVID and sayonara. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20Edit

 

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. - Glad that the three letters are no longer taboo for you!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Boat Race 2021Edit

 On 17 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Boat Race 2021, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that this year's Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge will take place on the River Great Ouse instead of the River Thames for the first time since 1944? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Boat Race 2021. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Boat Race 2021), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)