Revision as of 19:48, 25 January 2008 editStruway2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers141,832 edits →Villa articles: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:33, 26 January 2008 edit undoPIO (talk | contribs)789 edits →integration: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
Recent history: that's the one that doesn't mention the 1963 League Cup, isn't it? I'll try and have a look over the weekend sometime, if that's OK. Had a quick glance and there's a fair few typos (unnecessary capitals, small words missing), would you rather I just fixed those? obviously I'd bring anything non-trivial to your attention. cheers, ] (]) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | Recent history: that's the one that doesn't mention the 1963 League Cup, isn't it? I'll try and have a look over the weekend sometime, if that's OK. Had a quick glance and there's a fair few typos (unnecessary capitals, small words missing), would you rather I just fixed those? obviously I'd bring anything non-trivial to your attention. cheers, ] (]) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
== integration == | |||
I made integration in ] with valid source: you are in error!!!! FIFA'S source pertinet television's audience is a ridiculous propaganda's lier: you can remove that source rightly!!!!--] (]) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 26 January 2008
Archives |
October 2006 – August 2007 |
Welcome
|
Happy New Year
Hello Woody, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Thanks for all your work on MILHIST and making it such a pleasant area in which to work. No wonder it is so successful!~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
File:010105 fireworks2.jpg |
Thanks and Happy New Year
Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.
Military history service award | ||
For tagging and assessing 250 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
Military history service award | ||
For tagging and assessing 500 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.
Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be good to have your feedback/comments on the drive at the Tag & Assess workshop
Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The football league
Now I found the league tables on this website, which covers every season from the beginning. I think it goes in the format
- Games played, games won, games drew, games lost, goals for, goals against, and points. Blueanode (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there is now The Football League 1890-91. Blueanode (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Easington Colliery A.F.C.
Cheers for rating the article, i intend to expand but information about them is really hard to come by. Thanks. Sunderland06 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, about the colour bit could i use this as a citation . Sunderland06 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad...
...to be back, although the holiday was great! Thanks for your message. Look forward to kicking on with some more stuff! Happy new year to you! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: J0HNNY, I replied on my talk page
JERRY contribs 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks for helping out there and reminding me about the 3RR rule. That would of been embarrassing :P Compwhiz II 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE:God, hes doing it agian! AIV Compwhiz II 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'm going to step out of this one. Good Luck, Compwhiz II 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
ships as females
Thanks for you messages on my talk page. I think the issue needed to be discussed, and that it should not be hidden away in archives or in one of those purple cover-ups. I agree that the debate could have been more civil, but that's easy to say in retrospect. In a way, it was necessary to expose the emotional aspect of this aspect of the grammar to make people take it seriously. I'm not being "pointy" in saying that; this is an issue that involves what I consider to be a highly regrettable practice on WP. Tony (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dead links
Hey Woody, thanks for that. In a miraculous fluke of coincidence I was just looking at that on WP:FOOTBALL so I'll get on with it asap. Thanks for the note. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Kingston University
Thank you for the protection put on this page and the note about multiple reverts. --Mattalex (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC) I am copying you into my correspondence with Mattalex. Thanks for your assistance.
Sent to Mattalex: If you work for Kingston University and/or a reputation management company hired by Kingston University, you should not be involved in whitewashing factual information referenced from external sources. If you are not convinced about the veracity of the information, I would be happy to discuss the sourcing with you, but you ought not to simply remove it on your own.
I would like to resolve this matter with you in order to avoid the need for formal dispute resolution. So let's try to agree to come to some understanding regarding the inclusion of accurate information, even if you find it to be unflattering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.51.176 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hoped that you would semi-protect the article, at least slowing down the ip's desire to insert his/her POV constantly. I realise that you could've banned people for their revert-tastic ways and I'm glad you didn't. Full protection is perhaps the least worst solution. Having been involved in an unbelievably inane article conflict aaaaaaages ago, I have no interest in teaching a pig to sing, again. I just didn't want to see libels edited into that article, over and over. Thanks, Mrfixter (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
Crocker Motorcycle page
Woody, Thanks for your help. Someone had to step in and take control.
Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.16.223 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Woody,
I do not need to edit the Crocker page further at this time. The saved version describes the Company without battle or issue. That description was and is sound. Be sure that Karalash will revert to his version when allowed and I will have no choice but to change the description to an accurate one. If you cannot see who the vandal is in this case, please discuss this with the other editors. Karalash is trying to damage both Crocker and I. I will be glad to send you the Affidavits of both Karalash and I. The content should clear up any questions as to what is going on. If you allow Karalash to accuse me of stealing on line without proof, you will be promoting defamation and slander to both Crocker Motorcycle Company and I. I am sure that this is not what Misplaced Pages is all about? Thanks
Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.16.223 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Rome: Total War 7 day RFP
Thanks for the semi-protect. I asked for help on the issue here as the vandal is using a dynamic IP. Other than page protection, how would you deal with this kind of vandal? BrokenSphere 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. The vandal is apparently pro-Hannibal, because they keep the mention of Julius Caesar, who's also mentioned in the same sentence, as just that. I've been throwing level 3 warnings at them now, but I wonder if they even see these and/or just move on to another IP address to keep making their POV edit. BrokenSphere 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try leaving a hidden message to discuss in that sentence when the block expires after they make another change and will let you know if it gets ignored. --BrokenSphere 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: +FA -A
Ah, no problem; I just happen to recognize most of the titles since I do the bulk of the A-Class closings. :-) Kirill 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A&W Root Beer
I was wondering if you could peer review the A&W Root Beer article. I wish to make sure that it gets peer reviewed, as I have been working on this article fr a while now. Thanks, - ~VNinja~ 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea
I know. It's wikistalking and I'll take it up at 3rr and ani if it goes on. Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- No need to protect. there are another half dozen editors who will revert should I fall foul of 3RR on that page. Thanks for being diligent! Eusebeus (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding others to CAT:AOTR
From the automated tracking page:
- User:Bearian added to Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall. On 22:48, 07 January 2008 by Woody.
- User:Aqwis added to Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall. On 22:47, 07 January 2008 by Woody.
That confuses me a bit. It may be best to allow admins to add themselves, it's a voluntary category. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't add them, I merely amended the cats to show their names alphabetically. Bearian diff, Aqwis diff. (Just as Krimpet didn't re-add everyone into the category, he just recreated the category). Woody (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Krimpet's adds were because she was implementing the restore after the DRV. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know, that was my point... ;) (Obviously not well made). Woody (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well adding everyone in the category all at once didn't raise my eyebrows but adds of just two people did... :) Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know, that was my point... ;) (Obviously not well made). Woody (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Krimpet's adds were because she was implementing the restore after the DRV. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Montenegro protection
The question was actually closed on the article's talk page. There is only one anon that keeps constantly bumping, despite the in-warning following the language bit in the article - furthermore, his version is protected, which means that he will not return and discuss regarding the article either - the protection goes at his benefit.
Any idea for a solution? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I indeed have suggested a while ago semi-protection over at WP:RFPP, but the explanation given was that it's not yet critical enough...and I knew it was going down this road. :( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow
This! We both settled on a week! :) Acalamari 18:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, I was thinking the same thing. :) Acalamari 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Osment
Ok. Didn't realize that "revert rule." Thanks. I can't believe someone objects to the fact that Osment was driving a 1995 Saturn when he had his wreck and DUI. It's a fact. I've found some people on wikipedia to be quite rude, especially a few of the admin types. Why is this? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I won't enter the Saturn again. What personal attacks? I never attacked anyone. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On "edit warring"
I refrained from "edit warring" for 48 hours in response to your comment on my talk page, and all that happened is that the other "side" in this "war" became more aggressive and destructive. I don't believe what I've been doing is any more than opposing organized vandalism. Certainly repeated de facto deletions like this and this can reasonably only be described as vandalism. And comments like this and this (note the edit summary) and this can only be described as flagrant, deliberate violations of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding civility and personal attacks -- with no meaningful enforcement of those policies. The editor who made those comments, who has along, disturbing history of harassing other Misplaced Pages editors in an effort either to drive them away, or provoke uncivil responses frovoking admin action, refuses to even acknowledge that his actions violate policy , deletes admin warnings from his talk page , and uncivilly mocks editors who cite his comments, regarding me and others, as inappropriate .
Now how about protecting the unvandalized forms of City_of_Bones, Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special, and The Mortal Instruments Trilogy, and take some appropriate action against the clear violators of Misplaced Pages policies involved in this dispute? VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
AVFC FT
Hey, following on from what ChrisTheDude is doing with Gillingham and what I think MattyTheWhite can do with York, how about trying to get Villa up to Featured Topic? I don't think you're far off already... I'm intending to get Ipswich (and possibly Norwich with Dweller) up to FT this year so I was just thinking it'd be pretty cool for WP:FOOTBALL to get five or six FT's... what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
Hello fellow Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "S"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 "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! 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 21:01, 10 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 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for welcome
Heh, thanks for the welcome. Nnkx00 (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Just a little, but I appreciate it nonetheless. :) Nnkx00 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thanks for watching out for my page. Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
TrackerSuite.Net entry deletion
Hello,
Your recently (well, today actually) deleted an entry I made for one of my company's products, TrackerSuite.Net, as 'blatant advertising'. I understand the need for Misplaced Pages to remain spam-free, and it wasn't my intention to enter anything other than an factual summary of what our product and its features. There are numerous software vendors who have posted entries about their companies and products: Basecamp (software), Journyx, Artemis (software), Microsoft Project, ProjectInsight, JIRA (software), Central Desktop, Teamwork (software) and others. There are several pages on Misplaced Pages such as Comparison of time tracking software and List of project management software, both of which we offer products for, that require listed products to be be Misplaced Pages entries.
I believe I kept our entry content factual as opposed to promotional. Please let me know specifically what you objected to, so that I can make corrections and submit our entry alongside the other software vendors and their products.
Regards,--KarsKormak (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, Thank you for your reply. Aside from the statement that it is a modular product, which can be easily changed, were there any other portions you considered promotional as opposed to factual content?
- "The Personnel Tracker.Net module is a required component of any TrackerSuite.Net configuration." - I do not understand your complaint that this sounds like it came from a technical manual. It is neither promotional, nor untrue.
- I appreciate your offer to post our entry as a sub-page, however, Misplaced Pages's policy page on the subject indicates that sub-pages are intended for temporary or transitional material.
- I did post an external reference to our product, which is fairly new. Is there a minimum number of external references required for a Misplaced Pages entry?--KarsKormak (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Yes, thanks Woody. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)
Hey Woody, I've left some pretty extensive comments on the talk page which should help with your quest for GA. Feel free to shout at me if you need anything more...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, the Villa article does seem to be attracting a bit of a sod but nothing we can't handle I reckon. Let's leave it for now and just revert on sight - I've blocked both "prick" IPs so we'll just have to be careful when they get back online. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- As always, no worries! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Glen Maxey
Thanks for noting the block of the user. I'll be keeping an eye on it and will post on it again if the person keeps coming back to mess with the entry (we think we know who it is locally but I guess in today's politics this is something we have to deal with now). Amplifiedlight (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Leeds
I guess you have to go with what the majority want. But I had hope I would be able to compromises with the ongoing season note. It's sad really I really wanted this list to be a FL. Buc (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I certainly wouldn't support any FL noimination for it. Buc (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
aargh
Tryin' to put your little note above mine? How egocentric! - PeaceNT (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, you (really) didn't get conflicted? Well, the MediaWiki must have packed up I guess. ;) - PeaceNT (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but I've got no idea how to see that precise stats. Anyhow, never mind - PeaceNT (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Leeds seasons
Hey Woody, do me a favour and review the article when you get a chance will you? This is close to FL so I'm going to push it there. It'd be good to iron out any outstanding issues before I put it up at FLC. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Woody, a double check would be good. I didn't think the PR would be this detailed but I guess that was what went wrong last time! I'll see you at the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Woody. Villa stats reviewed at the PR. I'll see if I can get some more time to re-review the late history section. No need to list at GAN, if I think it's good enough I'll promote it without having to go through that. No reason not to! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Woody, started going through the history article and felt that a few of my previous comments might not have been dealt with. Can you do me a favour (boring I know) but can you check off all the points and make sure you've done them? I've found quite a few points in the current lead already so before I continue could you just revisit the last comments? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Woody. Villa stats reviewed at the PR. I'll see if I can get some more time to re-review the late history section. No need to list at GAN, if I think it's good enough I'll promote it without having to go through that. No reason not to! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget!
Dear Woody, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Thanks
Thanks for putting the FLC box on the talk page for the List of the birds of North Carolina. Can't believe that I forgot. Oh well. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Leeds seasons FLC
Woody. I've gone and done it and nominated it. Hopefully you'll feel that you can support, but obviously if there's anything outstanding don't hesitate to bring it to the FLC. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so you beat me to it by seven minutes! Eagle eyes...! Cheers. Joint effort all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's the key. I think if I can do one thing around here, it's communicate. So this, should it make it, ought to be a weeny bit of bronze star for about a half a dozen editors. A great example of WP:FOOTBALL collaboration. Oh, and I'll kick on with the Villa stuff when I get a moment tomorrow. Best to you, The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Your relentless efforts to improve the quality of the numerous articles and lists relating to the Victoria Cross and football (soccer ;-) have been impressive. In recognition of your progress and achievements, I hereby award you a shiny barnstar! Congratulations on yet more acknowledgment! |
SoLando (Talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all. Most deserving, I can assure you! :-) The lists have desperately needed attention. I personally cannot conceive of a British Army VC list ever being created, I really can't! We can only hope an intelligent, dynamic bot is designed soon ;-). SoLando (Talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would certainly be interested in rendering whatever assistance would be welcomed. Perhaps embarking on a campaign of stub creation to blue'ify the lists? Have you assembled an unformatted "dump" of names or are you labouriously collecting them individually? There's always the archive repository at . Regards, SoLando (Talk) 09:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I speculated that with the magic of C & P, the process might perhaps be less time-consuming. I'll start linking at discretion. Blue is aesthetic ;-). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Woody, are you monitoring Kevin Keegan? In the words of the protagonist of a once popular television programme - oh boy! ;-) SoLando (Talk) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I speculated that with the magic of C & P, the process might perhaps be less time-consuming. I'll start linking at discretion. Blue is aesthetic ;-). Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
One small question, I was thinking of adding a list of "Unsuccessful nominees" to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page. There is a source Although it is sort of a fansite (but if needed, I'll likely be able to find articles) and there have only been something like 30 that have been nominated by never inducted. So, I was wondering if you thought I should give the section a try, or just leave it to official inductees. -- Scorpion 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 09:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! (re my old username)
Thanks for that! Now I know why Ralbot left those messages... gah, I forgot to remove myself from the spamlist! Please can you fully-protect my old username/user talk page (of SunStar Net (talk · contribs · count), now a doppelganger), since it should need no further editing! Thanks, --Solumeiras 12:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: WP:ERROR
Oh, no problem. I didn't think your reply was blunt at all; I'm always aware that how words appear on screen are often not as they were intended. Reading some of my old edit summaries back to myself I come across as a bit of an arse, when in almost all cases they were intended tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, all the best, Liquidfinale 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Protecting Kangaroo
Would extending it really prevent the vandalism? It appears (looking through the history) that the mass of the vandal edits are compiled by the same editors. Regards, Rudget. 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're right. We may as well let it run it's course now. Thanks. Rudget. 17:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: WP:ERROR
Yes, but the timer said "Time since last update: -1 hours". That is fixed now. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 22:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, it was fine when I looked at it. In that case someone didn't refresh the clock at Template:DYK-Refresh when they updated the page. You can do it next time by clicking the reset clock when on the Template:DYK-Refresh page. Woody (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Telemann's 1716-1717 whatever
- That page looks like it may be vanity (re: username). You're sure it should be kept? JuJube (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
BA flight 38 news
It looks like I was one of 3 people who started articles on this. My article was quickly merged & redirected by User:Edward which was good. I come back an hour later and the article history doesn't reflect the early article creation history that I remember. What happened? Astronaut (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Villa recent history
Hey Woody, close to GA now. I've added a few more comments to the talk page. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Salting
Hi,
I'm always late to learning these things, but I did notice that a few days ago. Since I'm plagued by inertia, I won't switch over until I think things through a bit (examine the appropriate policy page, with a particular eye to the question of how long such protections should be.) I'll probably get around to it before the end of the month, anyway. I'm dim-witted, but I've learned to accept it. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Villa later days history
Good work, I've promoted to GA now. I'll have another look over the records article and see what Naphit's saying too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
Thanks for the unblock. I'll have to find out who has been making all those edits on this IP. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 23:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Banners/Bannershells
Hope you're well Woody. I noticed that you changed the way the wikiprojects are nested on the Ugo Ehiogu talk page - is one way considered better than the other or is it down to personal preference? Just wondered, as I'd not really seen any guidelines or anything, but I have been using the method that shows/hides all wikiprojects with one click. Jameboy (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Cream Legbar
No, I don't mind, though I think the article as it stood was poorly written to the point that it appeared incomprehensible if someone happened to just skim it, like I did. Don't mind me anyway, the links you've shown me do establish the legitimacy of the subject, please feel free to restore and improve the page. You're absolutely correct here. My apologies, - PeaceNT (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Villa
Hey there Woody you have been busy!!! Must say its a great read the second history section. Iv been very busy with work but the last few days been crippled with this bug thats going about its dreadful i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy its that bad! I will start getting back into the swing of things soon-ish i guess. Once again well done and hope all is well! Andy Everlast 17:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there i can't get to sleep cause of this bug! So i added a couple of images to the records page if you think theres to many by all means remove them. Looking at it IMO i think it does break the article up nicely! Anything else need doing on the article like anything need ref'ing or adding? Everlast 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Its dreadful you can't barely swallow so when you go to sleep you can for about 3 hours wake up and you nearly choke. Thanks anyway buddy! I guess to get a featured topic we need to get the minor article likes - Bodymoor Heath, Derby and Reserves to GA? Is that actually possiable? Everlast 00:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know what its like the some people will argue against it won't they guess its up to us to make them see sense - Also the Ladies! Is it possiable on the Template to have like a see also section or related articles? And move them into a Disambiguation page like the history one, which lists them? If that makes sense? Everlast 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your as you said even though you put (ha) tut we are a bigger club than Gillingham thus have more info. Everlast 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think sky would disagree isn't Newcastle the biggest club in the world ever with the biggest history *whistle smiley thing* ;).Everlast 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Template fix request
Ok, done. Kirill 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Something for you
The WikiChevrons | ||
In recognition of your diligent efforts in converting deprecated templates, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Kirill 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC) |
Football
Oh, yeah! I can't believe I didn't see that. Sorry. Basketball110 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Woody, thanks for keeping an eye on the FAC templates and responding to the queries on talk; I have limited, slow dialup access here in the mountains, so there's not much I can do 'til I'm home. I'm afraid I'd make a mistake if I tried to open six tabs to promote/archive. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Trigguh
Looks like you granted this user's unblock request, but their block log shows no unblock. Just bringing that to your attention, seems a bit ambiguous. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock
Thanks :) Trigguh (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for lifting the block on my IP! -=Eduardo=- (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Main page image
Thanks for letting me know- I had just messaged NE2 as well... Oh well, as long as it has been removed. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's a collage. Check the source. -- Bellwether C 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- What map images are acceptable then? -- Bellwether C 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Hi. Sorry I did that deletion. I don't even know who did it it wasn't me. :) TheGamingMaster (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Thank You. ElGamingMaster (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Issue
No, not possible; checkuser relies on server logs which aren't available to outsiders. There are, of course, a variety of ways in which a sufficiently clever and malicious individual could obtain one's IP address without the use of such tools. Kirill 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're reading this message...
...then it worked. Thanks! Lankiveil 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Santa Anna
Thanks for trying, Woody; in a way, I'm quite proud of the fact that I managed to screw it up so bad that I dragged an admin down with me! User:PeaceNT fixed everything. --barneca (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:
I've responded at my talkpage. →Dust Rider→ 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- In fact i'll erase the deletion tag's on those pages. →Dust Rider→ 20:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Done/Not done
They're gone! :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
FIFA ec
we ec'd on FIFA - I'm going out for an app't now. Almost every source in "Records and statistics" was missing date and author, but I didn't want to override on ec. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Brewin, Brewin = Brewin, John. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Milner
James Milner has just had a ce. I wondered if you could proofread when you get the chance. Buc (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please reply to me on the PR.
Favour return time?
Hey Woody, just put Portman Road up at FAC and was hoping you might find some time to review the article and comment accordingly? Like you, I'm trying for (eventually) a featured topic, for ITFC in my case, so this is another inevitable article which must gain the confidence of the community...! Cheers if you can, cheers if you can't, all the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for the comments Woody, I've done what I think is needed... all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Woody, thanks for your comments and support. Would you mind too much if I "hid" your comments now they're resolved in one of those neat collapsable template things? Would make the FAC a little less cluttered. Cheers again! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice work, thanks. Goodness knows what I'd done wrong, it said in the template the ISO date should not be wikilinked. Oh well! Live and learn. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Woody, thanks for your comments and support. Would you mind too much if I "hid" your comments now they're resolved in one of those neat collapsable template things? Would make the FAC a little less cluttered. Cheers again! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
Woody, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Thank you
Hello Woody, Thank you for the clean up you did on my article on Stephen Cohn. It looks very clear and well defined. I believe, also, that your work answered all of the critiques of the aritcle regarding references. I'm wondering why the tag is still there. Do you know what else needs to be done to get the tag removed? 68.190.209.117 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
HMS Blanche
Woody
Do you have a copy of Colledge? Do you know anybody who does? If so, could you have a look at HMS Blanche? Thanks very much.
Shem1805 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Villa articles
Stats & records: as to FLC, it wouldn't do any harm to submit it. If it passes then it's one more star to add to your FT bundle (and the rest of us will then know what style to adopt :-)), and if it doesn't, it's already had a peer review, and more people would have a look at it if you announced you were planning FT candidacy, as they did with the Gillingham one.
As to style, I haven't had a proper look at the Liverpool one yet, though did notice it seems to have copied your lead section, or else you both copied from the same source. Think ideally I'd prefer somewhere between the two styles. It's a stats and records article, so the subject matter lends itself to lists/tables within the article, but if you want lists/tables unrelieved by any prose you might as well read the News of the World football annual. Though I think Liverpool's goes too far with having only prose for the Club records. And the squad numbers isn't necessary. This is all a matter of personal taste, though.
One thing I didn't mention at PR was in the Honours section, I think you ought really to include runners-ups as well. Obviously in the Honours bit in the main club article there isn't room, but there's plenty of space here, and they're a more significant part of the records of the club than, for instance, the fact that the delightful Mr Alpay kicked a ball in the 2002 World Cup.
Recent history: that's the one that doesn't mention the 1963 League Cup, isn't it? I'll try and have a look over the weekend sometime, if that's OK. Had a quick glance and there's a fair few typos (unnecessary capitals, small words missing), would you rather I just fixed those? obviously I'd bring anything non-trivial to your attention. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
integration
I made integration in association football with valid source: you are in error!!!! FIFA'S source pertinet television's audience is a ridiculous propaganda's lier: you can remove that source rightly!!!!--PIO (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)