User talk:The Rambling Man/Archive 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Invincibles
We need you still editing from Laos....else the progress I documented at WT:CRIC will slow up badly....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Urk
I'm rude. Thought you were off tomorrow, so never wished you a good trip. Bye bye. Send us a postcard. Come back soon. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Phew. If you'd like to turn this blue, that'd be cool. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you been forced to pay a bribe yet? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet. But I have been forced to drink a lot of beer...! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're lucky. But then again you're not a local ethnic. In Vietnam, the police do their own roadblocks and tax people (Viets only, they don't want to offend western investors and tourists and so forth, but they do it to ethnic Viets who aren't Vietnamese citizens as well). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm sure. I managed three weeks in Vietnam a couple of years ago and managed to avoid anything unpleasant there as well. In fact I seem to remember having the time of my life...! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're lucky. But then again you're not a local ethnic. In Vietnam, the police do their own roadblocks and tax people (Viets only, they don't want to offend western investors and tourists and so forth, but they do it to ethnic Viets who aren't Vietnamese citizens as well). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Leeds seasons
Do you think you could reassess your vote on the FLC page when you can find the time. Buc (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Buc, that'll be early January. Feel free to advise the FL promoter to disregard my vote should all of my points have been taken care of. All the best. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Spam in User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- To save you time if you're logged in while abroad, TRM, this has now gone to MfD. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
And a very merry christmas to you, and indeed a very happy new year. Sunderland06 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Further comments on MFD - Intellect books, etc.
I was your response on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox. I've responded there. Summarizing — Melanieharrison, under the registered userid and as IP 81.149.59.110 has continued to add Intellect book spam. There has been no response to notes left on her talk page. No one has specifically asked her if/when she intends to work in the Sandbox article. As you've taken a mentoring role here, I didn't want to impose my deadline on her; rather, have left my comments on the MfD. — ERcheck (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I understand that you are traveling (stay safe); no need to rush things, nor take risks with account security. Since consensus was to keep the page and give her some time to work on it, I will support the consensus. Since you have stepped in to mentor her, I think it would be best that communication come from you with respect to expectations of a timeframe in which she should work on it in her sandbox. WP guidelines do say that such restored articles should not remain indefinitely. She should be making a good faith effort to edit the article. If she continues to spam, either under her username, or without logging in, then those edits can be looked at independently from the sandbox article. Good journeys. — ERcheck (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hope your having a good time on your holidays, i have asserted notability for Easington Colliery A.F.C. because they have played in the FA Cup first round. anyway enjoy yourself. Sunderland06 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good stuff, looks like a great start you've made! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Hello, I noticed you are still editing at the moment using your "on tour" account. Just to let you know I am drafting my RFA at User:Camaron1/Sandbox. I am currently planning on starting it late December/early January. Have a good Christmas. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Christmas
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1
You requested notification for when my RFA starts, it has now started, and you are welcome to add your comments to the RFA whatever they are. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops sorry
I thought it was a impostor. Happy holidays. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries! Thanks for your concern, and happy holidays to you too. All the best from sunny Laos, The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year
 |
Hello The Rambling Man, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...Here's to another year of cricket!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
 |
WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Leeds United A.F.C. seasons
Ok the PR is over now. Am I ok to re-nominate? Buc (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The curent season has been fixed so it no loger needs to be updated. Is this still not good enough! Buc (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I will once if sort this issue with the current season. I ask again, IYO is it still not good enough? Buc (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks card
 |
Hello, The Rambling Man, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for coaching me, without your help this RFA might not have been successful. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
Welcome back
Hi great to see you're back from your holdays and i hope you had a really good time, it's a bit late but merry christmas and happy new year. Sunderland06 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Welcome back. All good here, other than a little Ming FA stress on my talk page. I'm Ming the Merciless it appears, lol. --Dweller (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My featured noms
Gills bosses all sorted (at the second attempt!), all points addressed on SPS apart from the graph which I can't do anything with till I'm back on my home PC. Thanks as ever for your comments........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and this time it's only taken an hour and a half! :-P ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Back in the saddle
Once your steed has settled down, you might want to take a look at this ;-) --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or if you'd like something more brain-damaging, there's a terrible mess going on in the refs of Keith Miller. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you're on-wiki over the next day or two, please keep an eye on the silliness at the Border-Gavaskar article. Ta. I feel vindicated in sprotecting as it was followed almost immediately with vandalism at its talk page - which is of course a great improvement on vandalism at the article. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
New York City Fire Department
I see this guy is back to his old shenanigans. I trust you had a great vacation. Happy New Year! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
BCFC players
Hi, happy new year, hope your hols went well. Re archiving the peer review, in my ignorance I asummed that when the peer review notice on the talk page changed (not by my doing, they've been working on automating the process) to say it had now been archived, then it actually had. I've now moved the peer review to an archive subpage.
Re Frederick Speller, he joined the club before league football started, so like the other early players he appeared in non-counted competitions. Once the Fotball Alliance started, he missed only two games in all comps in 3½ seasons before breaking his leg so badly that his career was finished aged 27/28. These days, an undisputed first-choice player for a second-tier club missing only one in thirty games would have played a minimum of 150 league games, let alone cups. I'd argue he qualified by Some players who have played fewer matches are also listed; this category comprises players from the club's early days, when they played fewer matches in a season... I'll act on your other points, thanks for your comments. Probably I should have answered at the PR before archiving it, sorry bout that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point, though in Mr Speller's defence, the selection criteria came first (taken from the Arsenal and Aston Villa lists), and I'd initially thought Speller was the only player to qualify solely in that category. I've had another look at the early days, and there are another couple of players, Will Devey and Eddy Stanley, who really ought to be in there. Stanley played for the club for 10 years, just into the Football Alliance era, before retiring through injury, and Devey was there 6 years and scored a lot of goals before moving to a Football League club. What d'you reckon? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dead links
Hey there Rambling Man, some helpful soul has gone through the Footy FAs and found quite a number of dead links. Ipswich Town F.C. has 15 problematic links. I find the wayback machine very effective. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sppoooookkkyy! I was just looking at the Villa ones, Randy seems to have updated the website, great new interface, breaks all my links though!!! Woody (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Delisting GAs nonsense
FYI you CAN simply delist articles from GA yourself. As an example see this [1]. And if you are now suggesting that I am a major contributor to the article then I this is a timely and convenient change... But enough of this nonsense and your childish conspiracy sockpuppet antics with SECisek last December, I think a New Year's resolution is the order of the day... EdChampion (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, if the article is considered controversial (and by George you've made it that alright), you should take it to WP:GAR. As for claiming I used "childish conspiracy sockpuppet antics", you're accusing me of something, yes? Please be careful what you accuse others of, attacking other editors can lead to your account being blocked, along with your particularly rude edit summaries. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandals
If someone doesn't log in to their Wiki acct in order to vandalize how can I tie an IP address to a specific Wiki account? Alatari (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
You're still in one piece I see. Hope to see you down at Maggie's boyfriend. Lol. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandalicious
Thanks for your quick help with User_talk:Fugnleigobvofnmbk, I appreciate it! Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Message from Melaniesharrison (talk · contribs)
Happy new year - thanks for your msg. Please could you look at the article in my sandbox and see what I need to do to it? Think it is still wrong at the mo. Many thanks Melaniesharrison (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
That makes sense, thanks for your help :). ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Reason for deletion please
I don't really understand why you keep deleting the Auzentech sound card manufacturer. Please explain this. What will it take for this company to become "significant" in your eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by U2jacob (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Wetten
Am I being too generous, or too harsh? I suspect the former... there's a devil in my ear urging me to shout "DELETE!" --Dweller (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw an ad for the premier and looked it up. If you see the talk page, I had considerable trouble naming the article. Thanks also for the contrib to the AfD. --Dweller (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that covers it, between us. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I, sir, am utterly splendid. How's your good self? Speedily whitening, I hope, for the sake of your sickened friends and colleagues. Yuck, if there's one thing worse than someone just back from having a good time is someone who's visibly just back from having a good time. --Dweller (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that covers it, between us. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
FTC
Many thanks for your support, and I look forward to being able to do the same for the Tractor Boys! ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Gills' oldest player
As far as I'm aware it was indeed Hessy, but surprisingly I don't seem able to find a reliable source to confirm this fact...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Footy FTs
Yes, an AVFC FT was the ultimate intention of Everlast and myself. I was thinking that we only needed to get the second history article up to scratch to reach it. The trouble is we also have Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records and Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy but I don't think that they are "core". Well, I do think that the stats one is, but where does that article stop being encyclopedic and start being an almanac? Woody (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, could you take a look at History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961-present) when you get the chance. GA is the current target. Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert, just pipped me at the post. Now that Tom Hanks has come out of the closet it keeps being re-added. People just don't read talkpages anymore! Woody (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou very much for the review of the History article. I couldn't disagree with any of your suggestions so I have implemented them. Another look wouldn't go amiss. The sourcing is all there, usually done by paragraph. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- n.b. How about semi-protecting the Villa article, thinking about listing at RFPP, for COI reasons. Woody (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now I see they are blocked, never mind! Woody (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Our messages crossed each other in cyberspace I think. Yes, I agree, given the possibility of transfers being added by IPs, reverting seems a better option. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- No comment Woody (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Our messages crossed each other in cyberspace I think. Yes, I agree, given the possibility of transfers being added by IPs, reverting seems a better option. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the revert, just pipped me at the post. Now that Tom Hanks has come out of the closet it keeps being re-added. People just don't read talkpages anymore! Woody (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961-present) needs another review. Shall I list it at GAN? Also, there is a Peer review open for Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records basically asking for ideas on what this list should look like. Could you take a look at them both when you get the chance? Thanks. Woody (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for both of them. I was looking at the backlog at GAN with dread, I might review a couple of articles to help out. Woody (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
 |
Thanks for your support | |
| Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
AncalagonTB
This person has admitted to having another account on WP and I'm wondering if the new account is a way to bypass a ban or hide a WP:COI. How can I find this out? Alatari (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm looking for your opinion if I should pursue it. Of course if someone wants to start a new account that's fine but my intuition suggests there's a WP policy violation behind it. I have no strong evidence just the way they seem to not understand policies and their aggressive methods on the talk pages. Alatari (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do the Checkuser articles go into detail on what constitutes good evidence? Alatari (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Request
Rambling man, I noticed that you did the GA review for the article Yotsuba&!. So I was wondering if you would be willing to reviewing the Tenjho Tenge article that I nominated.(Duane543 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
- I'm mostly finished with fixing the issues you left of the talk page. I did leave a question for you about the ninth comment. (Duane543 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC))
Gavin Donoghue
Do you think you could have a quick look through this and tell me if you think it could be GA soon, just ignore the citation neeeded tags, as they will be sorted outt soon enough (i am waiting for the date of the programme for this) i think it has a decent ammount of references for a player of his age. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sunderland06 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, i wasnt about to put it in just yet, but do you think you could trim the under 18 section a bit. Thanks. Sunderland06 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Post-RFA update
Hello TRM, thought I might give you an update on what I have been doing since I became an administrator. You are likely to have noticed that I have had a user name change from Camaron1 to Camaron as the latter is simple and more desirable. I have been doing a variety of admin tasks recently such as dealing with WP:PRODs, WP:RFPPs, and WP:AIV reports. You might like to quickly review them, if you have any issues please tell me. I am on bit of a wikibreak so I have not yet done admin work at WP:AFD. It is a little less simple than the other tasks, I will ask for advice if I need it on that when I get there. I have also had less time for making contributions, when my wikibreak is over I hope to continue working on a few articles - including getting SimCity 4 to GA once and for all, which I will ask for your help over when I get to the GA nom stage.
I have already got myself in a bit of conflict with another user over use of the admin tools, in this case it was Tss8071 (talk · contribs) who has now been blocked for being a sockpuppet master. I protected Arnold Murray to stop the edit warring, this user was not happy and kept harassing me on my talk page over it, see the 'Arnold Murray page' section at User talk:Camaron. (S)he even started posting on other peoples talk page to complain about me, calling me mindless e.t.c. I eventually unprotected the page as it seemed to be a dispute between only a few users, but it certainly has acted as a taster on what been an admin is like. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have closed two AFDs now, they are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbour View Elementary School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murphy Creek K-8 School. Except accidentally re-directing to the wrong article which has been quietly corrected, the result looks right to me, so no issues so far. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
McCann Article
Sorry bout that. I thought I had put the reason the first time! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Jackson
Hi. Mattinbgn has nominated Archie Jackson for FAC, but hasn't had a lot of feedback. I was wondering if you could take a bit of a look & provide some comments etc. (Disclaimer: I provided some c-e & the images, and yes, I like Jackson...lol). Cheers
Phanto282 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
?
Nominate what? Did I send you a nomination for something by mistake? Buc (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh right! Why didn't you say that in the first place? Okay just to be clear. I won't be nominating Leeds Seasons yet but I might consider it at the end of the current season. But if someone else were to nominate it right now, while I wouldn't support it, I would oppose it either. I don't think the present/absents of one line in a table is enough to oppose a FL nomination, just to not support it. Buc (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiCup
Would you like to join the amazing team? I am thinking of trying a proper process for people to join the team. // F9T 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Jackson
He is a controversial figure in American history with some very serious criticisms that go as far as him murdering some men under his command without proper trial, massacres of Creek men, women and children and attributions of his ideas on Indian removal being the basis for Hitler's Final Solution. A lot of the sources are non-American but what I find seems scholarly. The current article has a distinct Hero quality with little detraction. I need advise from an experienced editor on how to move the POV to a more N standing and get the article to Class-A standing if possible. It's controversial nature might lead to constant changes dismissing that notion (as The Holocaust is still Class-B). My relativistic view of the world allows me to see how he was both a great and despicable man so I can stand on the knife edge about the POV. Alatari (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit War template
Is there a template to place on a page that's involved in an edit war? Alatari (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
canaries
Yeah, saw it. Would be more interested if we were still 5 points adrift at the foot, rather than zooming up the table. 22 points in last 11 league games. Utterly astonishing. 10 pts off the play-offs now. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- You lot and Watford may have peaked too soon. Can't see Bristol City sustaining this for a season, so there's a slot open for automatic... Palace? This is all about momentum... we could well get into the playoffs. btw, seen your inbox? <dong> --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Leeds
Sorry, no can do, or not now, anyway. This "real life" stuff has me pretty much out of here till tomorrow. Leave it a bit, either your brain'll come back or someone else'll have a look at it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Found some inaccurate numbers, needs a double-check. I can help if you want. Woody (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Notable players in Liverpool F.C. article
Hello! You recently made some very useful observations in the peer review of Liverpool F.C. - however, one of them was that you were unsure about the notable players section (which User:NapHit has interpreted as a call to delete it). First of all, I should state my interest- I am contributor to the Liverpool F.C. article, and I was in fact the person who started that section in 2006! However, I really do believe it adds to the article, because I think that part of understanding the history of a team is understanding some of the great names who contributed to what it is - and the section was fully referenced, with a reason given for the inclusion of each. I honestly think that you now learn less about Liverpool F.C. from the article as a result of its loss. Now, of course, I fully admit to being biased on this score, but I really think that other wikipedia articles would actually benefit from these kinds of prose sections, rather than just relegating things to the oh-so-dry lists, and so I thought I should make a last stand! Robotforaday (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do take your points on this - I am just somebody who stands in defence of prose, and even if the particular section is compromised, feel there must be a way to write a historical section without being POV - and I think it is important to fight for this before all of wikipedia becomes a series of tables and infoboxes! I think a discussion at the wikiproject would be the way forward. Thanks for thinking about this, anyway, and thanks once again for the useful comments at peer review. Robotforaday (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yo
I hear you're a really good vandal-fighter--any chance you could gimme tips on how to do this stuff better? I use Lupin AVT and TW, and I'm working on bringing up my mainspace edits for VP, as you might have noticed.... Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Revisiting User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox
A followup. I note that after no edits since 17 December, Melaniesharrison has contacted you (8 Jan) , but has not made any edits to her sandbox since 14 December. While much longer than the 2 weeks you indicated that the page would remain, seems she has looked at it. If she doesn't make any edits to upgrade in a reasonable amount of time, she can certainly work on it off-Wiki.
Thanks for taking on this mentoring.
(Recall the MFD on the sandbox page.)
— ERcheck (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Archie
Hi and thanks for taking a look at Mr. Jackson. The suggestions were very useful and I think I have addressed the points you raised. Please let me know what you think of the changes and any other suggestions you have to improve the article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Formatting seasons lists
Hi, I've just tried formatting Birmingham City F.C. seasons according to Peanut's format in my sandbox, and gone one step further by replacing Winners and Runners-up in the FA and League cup columns with W and RU. Brings the League cup column width down nicely, so virtually nothing has to wrap anymore, and looks quite tasteful (not that swathes of gaudy gold was ever much of a problem for my lot, obviously). Are you all right with that Leeds table, or would you like any assistance? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I much prefer it the new way, but others might not, I think it looks much tidier. You could use Grp rather than Gp for group, but Northern Final is a bit unfortunate, can't think of an alternative offhand. The Inter-cities trophy playoff thingy, the playoff bit is part of the competition name, i.e a playoff to see who got to keep the trophy permanently when the competition was superseded by the UEFA cup, so you only need RU in the round column. Well done! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Leeds seasons
No worries, will have a look at it later. I only guessed when I did the Bradford one and got lucky. I'm sure I'll manage it again. Peanut4 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Top class. Well done.
- Only thing left really is the top scorer and avge attendance in 1919-20 but if they don't readily exist, then that can't be helped. I reckon it will pass FLC now with pretty much flying colours. Peanut4 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can't make head or tail of the PR. Is there anything else that nneds doing? Buc (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- No I don't believe there is, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok might look to nominate it again in the next week or so. While I'm here I just thought I'd mention that James Milner had just had a big ce. I'm hopful now that the prose is good enough. Buc (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry Buc, I'll be nominating the list sooner rather than later after all the good work that's gone into it in the past few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was tapping out my support, as you tapped out your message. I think it's all there. Peanut4 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Villa
I must apologise, I seemed to have skipped most of the Lead ones, sort of dived straight in. I think I have got them all now. Thanks for your patience! Woody (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- History issues done, I think. Can I poke you in the direction of the PR of the stats again, particularly Naphit's comments. What do you think should be included? Woody (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Seasons
Duly supported. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Revisiting User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox
I agree that a few more days is fine. While it is possible that the company is notable, the work can be done off-Wiki to create an acceptable version. If Melaniesharrison wants to repost a new version, it might be helpful if she let you review it. — ERcheck (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Wikiproject banners
I'm aware of the banner shell templates, but while they do save space, there's the additional tradeoff that the make the information on the project banners harder to get at. I fully support their use on articles that do have several relevant projects, but in cases where the primary problem is bad/unnecessary tagging, using a bannershell is just treating a symptom rather than the actual cause. --tjstrf talk 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
2007 Hawaii Bowl FAC
Greetings. I have completed most of the items you requested to be fixed. There are some questions I left on the FAC page. If you have time, could you please read over them and give me advice. If you need to contact me further, please leave a comment on my talk page. Thank you, PGPirate 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Greetings. You wrote
Should I just combine paragraphs, or write more to fill out the paragraphs more? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)I'm not keen on the short paragraphs each cited with the same reference for the match summary sections. I know it's a match report but the really short paragraphs and short sentences make for awkward reading. 23 paragraphs? Too much for me. A lot of work should be done on flowing these paragraphs together to improve the prose and hence readability.
- Greetings. I merged some paragraphs together, so the article flows better. I don't know what is wrong with some of the references date. I have looked at them all. If you get a chance, could you possibly read over the article again and give your support:). If needed, please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA: Alexf
I have been nominated for an RfA. If you haven't done so already, I would appreciate if you could go and comment on this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexf. Thanks and happy wiking! -- Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 12:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Image removed from Ipswich murders
Hi,
In response to the message regarding my removing of the image of Anni Alderton, I offer these reasons:
- The image shows only Anneli aboard a train. It has no other context. She frequently used the rail services.... Just because this is apparently the "last image" of her does not mean it should be included. I'd be interested to see the reasons for including this image.
- The image has no context. It's her on a train. What else does this image offer?
- There are better pictures of her around anyway now, so even if an image must be included, there are better ones.
- I removed the image from the 'timeline' section. Again, please explain the relevance. Why should it be included in the timeline if at all.
- This is the only image of any of the victims in the article... Why not the others?
- What does the image tell us? Nothing, other than that she was on a train. Again, bears no significance to the article. So what if the victim travelled by train to Ipswich? What does that matter?
I do not want to fight over this, but I do want the article to become excellent (the article, not the situation obviously). I will remove the image again, but only this time. I would be interested to see your comments, and I am as ever open to your criticism and comments. Blammermouth (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers
Thanks mate for the revert. All the best, Daniel (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Gracias!
Thanks for the IP troll reversion on my talk page. I seem to have drawn a follower, thanks for stepping in. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Sokuri
Would you please block this account for vandalism after the final warning, continuous WP:POINT abuse, and personal attacks? Jfire (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Highlanders (rugby) peer review
Hey. I've been struggling to get any comments at my requested peer-review of Highlanders (rugby). I was wondering if you would be able to spend a few minutes reading through the article and adding any comments or suggestions here? Thanks. - Shudde talk 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey I've addressed or commented on nearly all of your comments (bar a couple of prose ones, which I'm too tired to fix right now!). If you could respond to any, let me know what else needs to be done that would be great. Thanks. - Shudde talk 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:LOTD
Congratulations!!!! List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers has been selected to be a February WP:LOTD. If you have any particular date preferences please contact me by January 24th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Smile (Lily Allen) single cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Smile (Lily Allen) single cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Portman Road
I've made a few points, hope the whole process goes smoothly. I have fond memories of my one-and-only visit there for the mind-blowing reaction when Marlon King stepped off the sub's bench only two days after he came out of clink. Shame he missed a sitter right afterwards...... :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know if it'd be any help to you, but I just came across this article from Concrete, a periodical which I'm sure will be making a "guest publication" appearance on Have I Got News For You any time now. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Who'd have thought there'd be so much to do? By the time you get to FAC, either it'll sail through or they'll ask you to undo all the changes, lol. Btw, you got mail. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I also have fond memories of my one-and-only visit there when Geoff Horsfield scored a 94th minute winner (for 3–2), but I wish I'd also seen the 5–1 with Kevin Phillips' hat-trick. I've added a couple of bits to the article from Simon Inglis' book btw. --Jameboy (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lol. Loving the memories. Two games myself, two cracking goals, Beni's in a 3-1 defeat, and Michael Proctor's debut to give us a totally unexpected 2-1 win. Nowadays such a big ground to visit on an away day is merely a dream!! Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can we all stop having memories of beating Town at Portman Road please?! No, glad it's provoking some thought in the WP:FOOTY community. Hope you can all help me get the article up to FA. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lol. Loving the memories. Two games myself, two cracking goals, Beni's in a 3-1 defeat, and Michael Proctor's debut to give us a totally unexpected 2-1 win. Nowadays such a big ground to visit on an away day is merely a dream!! Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I also have fond memories of my one-and-only visit there when Geoff Horsfield scored a 94th minute winner (for 3–2), but I wish I'd also seen the 5–1 with Kevin Phillips' hat-trick. I've added a couple of bits to the article from Simon Inglis' book btw. --Jameboy (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Eurovision Song Contest 2008
I am having problems with Tony0106 (talk · contribs) over the ESC 08 article. He is continuing to engage in edit warring, despite been told not to. Recent comments by this user suggest that he simply is not willing too listen to other peoples opinion - and will go against the majority if necessary. I can take no action as I am involved in the dispute, so I decided to contact you, then I saw you had already warned him. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue seems to have been resolved now, I get the impression you are rather busy at the moment, but thank you for your input. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Kit FAC
Thanks for your comments, all sorted now I think...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Liverpool Stats PR
Hi there TRM, any chance you could look at the PR for List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records, as there is'nt much activity right now, and I feel its close to FL standard cheers NapHit (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Template
Hey, don't knock it. It could be that rehabilitating Porcupine into a respected, useful and likeable contributor here ends up as my greatest Wikipedia achievement! (But I've asked him to remove it...) Now, the photo idea is triffic - go for it. The sock thingy was interesting. I expected a positive result, just had the wrong culprit pinned for the crime. It was always more than a possibility, which is why I kept the drama as minimal as possible till the facts were established. Sadly, I've learned from others' mistakes in that respect. --Dweller (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was Porcupine's idea. It worked, as in it nudged me to actually get back to him. And now he's removed it so all is fine and dandy :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
SPSFC FAC
Many thanks, and thanks for sorting out all those FURs! ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That barn in Ipsh!t
Hi. It's looking just about ready to go to FAC. Q. Where did Ipsh!t play their home games after WWI while Portaloo Road was still being improved by the army's heavy plant? --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Portman Road
No worries. I guessed you'd take a look later but while it was fresh in my mind, I decided to reply. I haven't read through everything totally yet, particularly checking any refs, but it's certainly very close to FA in my book. I will give it a full read through fairly promptly, certainly by the end of the weekend I'd say. Just wish I'd seen it at PR first, but PR doesn't show up on my watchlist as much and I always forget to check to see if there's anything there I can help out on. Peanut4 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I am, and for my sins, the ground is the main view from my desk at work! Perhaps a comment about how the cost of building the Britannia Stand led to the sale of a few of the Robson-era players (and eventual relegation), and that there is the plastic pitch used for community stuff behind it could be added. Beyond that, I can't think of much. I take it you're a local too then? пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a bit about the effect of building the Pioneer Stand, with a reference to this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's a brief mention of it here and here, but can't seem to find much other stuff about it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ai. Just walked in from work myself 5 minutes or so ago. Back out in 30. No rest for the wicked. I'll probably only get chance to have a full look at Portman Road on Sunday, but like I said it looked very much ship-shape anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Go ahead and hide my current comments. I'll get round to doing a full review in an hour or so. Peanut4 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. I've gone through it all and made some minor changes. Feel free to change or revert any where you feel appropriate. I've added one question at FAC. And have one more (very minor) question here. It says the players "unusually" come out in the corner. I know the source says unusual but I'm not sure whether it is unusual. There must be a fair few clubs who come out in the corner, or are most now in the centre? Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Go ahead and hide my current comments. I'll get round to doing a full review in an hour or so. Peanut4 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ai. Just walked in from work myself 5 minutes or so ago. Back out in 30. No rest for the wicked. I'll probably only get chance to have a full look at Portman Road on Sunday, but like I said it looked very much ship-shape anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
FTC
Many thanks! I'll take a look at the Portman Road FAC later in between the continued improvement of the kit article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
All Blacks versus France at rugby union
Thanks for your comments at the FAC. Hopefully I've addressed everything. Please let me know if there is something I have missed. Cheers. - Shudde talk 04:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey. Hopefully nearly done. Have mentioned the naming thing at WP:RU; I'll just go with whatever consensus is reached there (I'm not worried what the consensus is, as long as there is one!). Anyway can you strike what you're happy with? Thanks. Really appreciate your help with the article btw. - Shudde talk 11:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh?
So now I'm not allowed to edit? What was wrong with it? Buc (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with my edit you just changed it because it was me. Buc (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I didn't like somethings in the lead so I changed them. What's wrong with that? Buc (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- What was wrong was: it was against the consensus of the FLC. It was not grammatically correct: but not for almost 50 years did they win It also added in weasel words This represented an unprecedented drop. Buc, it isn't because it is you, it is because the edits do not follow wikipedia guidlines. I would have reverted if I had been awake. Woody (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you are telling me I'm not allowed. The reason I've not done anything till now is because I've been busy. I didn't realizes you had to first add to the PR to be allowed to edit an article. Buc (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- You don't, that it is a fallacy. You need consensus to make edits, especially on contentious pages. You have turned the Leeds seasons page into a contentious page Buc, therefore, if you need to make edits you need to have consensus behind you. If I wanted to make a change, I would need to have consensus behind me as well. Buc, those edits do not have consensus as is evident by the PR and the FLCs. Woody (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. As I reflected on your talk page Buc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said before. There is nothing in the PR or FLC that says there was anthing wrong with the edit I made. Buc (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You have been told numerous times that you are not improving the prose Buc. Stop synthesising arguments. There is no perfect article, but there is consensus Buc. Woody (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
West Mids stations
Hi Rambling Man. Many thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of West Midlands railway stations. I think all comments have been addressed - I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Last thing was the issue of the hand-coded notes - with help from WP:Village Pump I've finally figured out how notes can have their own section separate from references, without my ddgy coding :-)> Regards, TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oops - yep missed that - I'll get to it now. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your comments - I'll look at dealing with those now. One thing - ORR is already wikilinked as the Govt. body - how about linking Govt. to Departments of the United Kingdom Government? Regards, TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Dealt with those - only thing is, regarding the footnote size, not sure what you changed, but in my browser the notes section is still normal size, whilst references and everything else below has shrunk! Apart from that you're right - it does look better without the bullets. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Right - gone through with an extremely critical eye - corrected a few typos, and fixed some broken links in the refs - all work perfectly now. Also added 2 new footnotes, for Dudley Port and Sutton Coldfield stations. Would you be so kind as to have another look? Regards, TicketMan - Talk - contribs 22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your support, TRM. It's been a challenge, but I've really enjoyed addressing your concerns, and the article has improved immeasurably for it.
- You maybe interested to know that I'm taking on List of railway stations in Wales, with the aim of bringing it up toa similar standard - looking forward to bringing it to FLC :-) Regards, --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 10:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A wee gift
 |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
| I do hereby award The Rambling Man, the Content Review Medal. This is in recognition of his constant work at the GAN, PR, and Featured content processes. Your work is truly appreciated around here TRM. Woody (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Your Thank You
Thanks for the message left on my talk page. You have a great attitude. I'm just trying to encourage people to make AfD a more "user friendly" process, as I'm concerned about newer contributors becoming alienated. Tarinth (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
List of railway stations in Wales
Thanks for the suggestions. I realise now that I was perhaps a little quick off the mark bringing West Mids to FLC. Nevertheless, got there in the end :-). Now I know what kind of standard is expected. To that end, I've placed a to-do list on the talk-page of the article, which should have the main points needed - it's a long way off yet though! Regards, --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 10:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
History of ITFC
Hi Rambling
I just noticed that the history of ITFC article says "At the end of the 1938-39 season Ipswich were elected into the Football League despite finishing third in the Southern League." It was actually the end of the '37/38 season. Ten bonus points if you know why I'm so sure of this ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you like some sauerkraut?
What's with "userboxen" on your userpage? --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Di Stefano
Thanks for the warning - I appreciate it! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks! It seems never to end! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Rail Runner GA review
Since your review of the New Mexico Rail Runner Express article, I've been editing the page to address your concerns. I think I've addressed everything you brought up, if you care to take a look and see what you think. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Aaargh
I managed to almost make a terrible mistake (I moved the 1982 player to the (footballer) dab page first) but I think I've undone your moves. The logs look a mess, but I think I have restored the pages to the status quo, and am about to list at WP:RM. Qwghlm (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about the Aaargh - more panicking at my own mistake than your move :) Don't worry too much about what happened, it's no big deal, nothing got lost. As for moves - it's nothing too hard, just remember to go by procedure at WP:RM and not delete extensive page histories (i.e. when they are not just redirects). If you read the fairly short & to the point Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators, you're pretty much set. Qwghlm (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I love you
Hey man I get that "you disgust me" thing a lot, but it's usually because I'm picking cinnamon doughnuts up off the floor of a food court and running down an escalator (true story!). Well, I'm glad you decided to speak out on it, there's no help line as such but I'm sure that your confidence will grow as much fatter and uglier people join the cabal. That and Wiki is a safe and nurturing environment where you can show off your "snow leopard tail" and the worst people can do is a bad photoshop. Stay cool! Dfrg_msc 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin to admin
Am I out of line here? Shouldn't I be mad as a hornet? Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Amaltheus (talk · contribs). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was ignoring Amaltheus. Then I made the fatal mistake of looking at his user page after Intro to Evo went to FA. I just about had a coronary 'cause of the sudden rage. I really am going to have to take Feb off. Thank you for your reply. At least, it isn't just me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
South Atlantic Medal Peer Review
Hi, thanks for reviewing the South Atlantic Medal, you said it was ok to message you, can you help me with something please? You said in the review "such as over capitalised headings", I read the link but I can't understand how it applies to the article, is it because one of the headings says "Awarding the medal"? In reference to the guideline that says;
- Avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy (Early life, not His early life).
Also with regards to "look at linking the dates correctly", I read the link, were you referring to the comma in "June 14, 1982" at the end of the "Awarding the medal" section, or have I missed another one?
Thanks for your help Ryan4314 (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, but do I wikilink every date? (e.g where it might "1982" or "June 14" just on it's own) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
List of Washington Redskins players
Thanks for the help. I was wondering if you could help me with one of your comments. Can you explain "Move the citations in the lead per WP:CITE, namely [7] and [8]."? I wasn't quite sure what you meant. Thanks again for all the great suggestions. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Caps at FAC
I love those things, but can you get folks who use them to start adding their sig to the cap title (like mine here), so I can be sure that the person who capped the comments is the person who made the comments? There are two American football FACs that I'm going to have to close since they've received no review whatsoever after ten days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear; just wondering if you had any ideas why those two articles have gotten no feedback. I always get clobbered when I close articles with no feedback, but at some point, I have to close them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if they have any FAC notification process; if I have to close both FACs, I'll suggest to the nominator that next time he nominate one at a time and that he network to find out why the articles were ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ipswich
I'm not sure which one yet. Which is why I half left it as that's it for now. It's one I'm going to watch closely, partly so I can fill out the Bradford City A.F.C. records I created and also cos I'm not sure if it's an annotated series of lists, or a prose-list article. I'd say list at this stage. Peanut4 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I guess the proof the pudding might be in the eating, if someone objects at either FAC or FLC that it belongs in the other one. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Stuff and stuff
Thanks for your extremely kind comments on my talk page, may I say that your own contributions (and amount of featured content created!) have been one of my major inspirations on WP. I'll certainly take a gander at the ITFC PR within the next 48 hours........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers! Think I'll stick to low-key stuff for a while now, these FACs are a bit stressful...... :-P ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- yup, don't worry, I'll be stopping by that PR at lunchtime...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
ITFC transfer fees
Hi, in general I'm wary of lists of highest transfer fees, on the basis they're all made up anyway. Even with "reliable" sources you can't necessarily tell whether the fee quoted is the up front fee, the fee once they've played x games, or the fee if they become the first Premier League player to represent the Solar System in the Intergalactic Cup. Though with Wright specifically, your source actually says "RICHARD WRIGHT, the Ipswich goalkeeper, is expected to become Arsenal's third summer signing this week in a deal worth £5 million", so I might change it for one that reports the deal having taken place. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
