User talk:Bucs

Michael Schumacher

Buc, could you use edit summaries, please? I'm not sure I understand your recent edits, which have removed a couple of refs without explanation. I haven't actually looked at the refs in question, so I imagine it may be to do with their reliability, but if you don't explain people may believe the worst. Thanks. 4u1e 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. OK, but please could you put that in the edit summaries? Cheers. If you're removing a ref altogether it might be an idea to put a citation needed tag in as well, unless you're putting in an alternate ref, which I see you have in some cases. Ta. 4u1e 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see if any alternatives come up in my run through hardcopy stuff. That will take a while though, but I do have the material for this one (unlike Monaco ;-)). 4u1e 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I repeat my request for you to use edit summaries to explain your edits, please? In particular, why do you keep adding a second reference for (presumably) Schumacher earning $80M in 2004? It's covered by existing references. I'd be grateful if you could explain. Thanks. 4u1e 16:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FA Brisbane Broncos

Not trying to be rude, but just because this page doesn't look like the featured article Sydney Roosters, doesn't mean it has to be a clone?? but i will take your suggestions into account and make changes, thankyou. SpecialWindler 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Roosters are another rugby league club and the only rugby league articl with FA. Sorry, it just seemed so like the Roosters article your suggestions. SpecialWindler 11:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I will be slightly changing Brisbane Broncos. SpecialWindler 11:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Football AID 22 April - 29 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Leeds United A.F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Michael Schumacher

Buc - many thanks for all your hard work on the Schumacher article, can I ask what your most recent references are meant to cover? Cheers 4u1e 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to Blungyen's comment about 2003? It's not clear to me what you're referencing, it looks like the race results? If so I think that is unnecessary, I'm quite happy to have that argument with Blungyen - the result of a given race is in no way controversial and can be covered by the normal catch-all reference that says that all results come from www.formula1.com. Cheers. 4u1e 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Hi there! Just wanted to check in real quick, I've left a question at the FAC for She Shoulda Said No that you commented on, I wanted to get your feedback on the issues you brought up. Thanks for the input so far! --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could please chime in at the FAC and answer my questions, that would be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 NFL Draft

i made modifications to the article based on your comment. Pls let us your opinion on the article based on the current version of the document. Kalyan 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Th BTTF.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Th BTTF.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Felix_Pie.jpg

I have tagged Image:Felix_Pie.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. MECU≈talk 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:F121.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:F121.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Cardinals seasons

I responded to your comment concerning the featured list candidacy of St. Louis Cardinals seasons. But more fully, I just don't know what your looking for when you say the lead could be longer. I mean I know it could be longer, but I just cannot come up with anything that is either important or relevant enough to include in the lead there. It has a link to the History of the St. Louis Cardinals for much more detail. Did you have anything in mind you were looking for when you made that comment? Timpcrk87 01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the featured list candidacy of St. Louis Cardinals seasons now have your support? You weighed in with a comment earlier so I thought you might like to give your opinion since the list only needs one more support vote.Timpcrk87 06:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derry City F.C./archive2

Hey there. Would you have any interest in contributing a suggestion or adding your support to the nomination of Derry City F.C. for featured article status? Cheers. Danny Invincible^Talk|Edits 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - Quick-failed GA Review

Hi, sorry about this, but I have quick-failed your nomination for this article, because it is unstable. This is highlighted by the current event tag. Please do not take this as a criticism of your work on the article, but unfortunately, stability is an important criterion. Consider renominating the article when it is no longer relating a current event, and you can expect a fuller review. Any questions, please drop them on my talk page. Best wishes --Fritzpoll 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian national cricket captains

Hi., i have made changes to have periodic headers in the tables of the wiki article. Can you please look at the article and let me know if this is how you envisaged the table? Please leave comments/vote on FLC here. Kalyan 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Guzmán.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guzmán.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Joe_Delaney.JPG

I have tagged Image:Joe_Delaney.JPG as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MECU≈talk 02:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Frame4.jpg

I have tagged Image:Frame4.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MECU≈talk 02:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could i suggest that you just wait until the transfer window, so there will be less changes, but by all means, go ahead, you have done very well with it  ¢нαzα93  19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(Liverpool FC article)  ¢нαzα93  07:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there could be a fair few changes, but feel free  ¢нαzα93  19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As i said above, its only a suggestion, go ahead if you feel it is ready, you have done well  ¢нαzα93  19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aston Villa F.C.

Hi, thanks for your comments on the FA nom for AVFC, i have now fixed or responded to your concerns on the nom page and i would appreciate any further comments. Thankyou Woodym555 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to revisit the Aston Villa F.C. Featured Article nomination so that you can comment on my replies to your objections. I have addressed some of your objections but others have been left and commented on. I would appreciate your replies to my answers. Thankyou Woodym555 18:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominating FAs

Hi mate, hope all is going well. Just noticed that you nominated 2007 Canadian GP for FA: Don't take this as criticism, but you might want to think about discussing whether or not to nominate with other editors, particularly when they have been working on a particular page. There are two reasons for this. The first is simply that it's usually a good idea to get several points of view on how close to being ready a page is. The second is that it can actually be very offputting when you've worked on an article and someone else nominates it for FA without talking to you. That's not to say that people 'own' articles, but it would be polite to talk to them about it and would motivate them more to be involved in the process. When you nominated Michael Schumacher about a day after I said I wanted a couple of weeks to work on the references I ended up thinking: 'Well, should I bother being involved in this process any more? My views obviously aren't important'. Something to think about anyway. 4u1e 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but not everyone makes as much use of the talk pages as you and I do. It's usually quite easy to identify who has been working on a page and I doubt anyone will object to being asked for their opinion about something they obviously care about! Cheers. 4u1e 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R

New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

Good work on this article, but the prose is still far from "brilliant" - the point I made about " a McLaren one-two on the front row" being redundant hasn't been addressed. Another issue: "By finishing seventh Alonso eight points on Hamilton in the divers championship. " makes no sense.

"Trulli lost concentration due to the worry about the Kubica's condition; due to this, he crashed on the exit of the pitlane after his second stop" still not cited. This just from a very quick glance. Mark83 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you can only have a one-two on the front row. A "one-two" on the 2nd row is 3rd & 4th. Mark83 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply - do you see my point or do you think I'm wrong? Mark83 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me. I was pointing out the redundancy - a one-two can only be on the front row, hence it's redundant to say "a one-two on the front row" - think of it like this you wouldn't say "a front row lockout on the front row". I used the 3/4 analogy to demonstrate the redundancy - i.e. you wouldn't say "a one-two on the second row" - because that is 3rd and 4th. Mark83 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Joey Barton article

I've been doing a lot of work on this article for about 2 weeks now, it must be getting close to featured article candidacy. I was hoping that when you get a spare moment you would be able to peer review the article or even improve it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Sir-Nobby 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'm not a great fan of his either, but he certainly does generate a lot of interest. Sir-Nobby 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

For your information, I've made a number of comments on the talk page. Cheers. The Rambling Man 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie

It would be appreciated if you actually added the nomination tag to the talk page, so we knew it had been nominated. And, also maybe discussed with the main contributors if they thought it would be a good idea to nominate it. Because I certainly don't think the article is ready, and I'm the primary contributor, I'm mean the film hasn't even been out a week... Gran² 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its not stable at all, and needs a lot more box office info. My main point is that you didn't even add the template on the talk page, but we'll see what happens, I suppose it could pass. Gran² 06:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. I just find that the actual discussion is easier to see, as its on my watchlist, whereas the Featured Articles page isn't, and I don't check that often, if ever. Usually Gimmebot updates at the same time so its not a problem. Gran² 07:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

HI, Buc ... When you update the articlehistory manually,[1] the bot has to stop and make a correction,[2] [3] so it's best fo follow the bold red reminder at the {{fac}} template and wait for the bot to update the talk page when FACs close. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada GP 2007

OK, I'll try. One of the first problems I immediately notice is the pre-race section. I think the bit about the testing should be extended, see 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix for how you could do it. Looks good so far. Davnel03 08:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Autosport.com is a superb place to get reports like that. Davnel03 11:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks OK, but I suggest you look at the Malaysian article on ways on how to improve it. On a side note, I noticed you had Canada up for PR a few weeks ago. The reason its had zero responses is because you never inserted the PR page onto the main PR page. I've listed it now. Davnel03 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

James Milner

Isn't much to suggest really. I'd recommend the "Early career" section to be renamed just "Career" and I don't really see the need for it to be split into seasons. And the prose will need brushing up. Mattythewhite 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Content-wise, it's GA. Just need prose to flow better. Chensiyuan 10:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to see the ins and outs of a FAC process you can see the discussion at an article I'm quite heavily involved in over here -- it's got to do with basketball though so I'm not sure if you'd be interested. Of course, if you have any comments feel free to leave them at the FAC page. Chensiyuan 15:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for your feedback. An editor has attempted to address most of your concerns on the FAC page. You may check them out if you wish. Chensiyuan 09:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on the Milner nomination, I'd keep an eye on that page if concerns are raised. Regarding the Duncan nomination, again we're working constantly to clarify/answer your questions, so if you ever have more questions you can check back. We're going all out to change people's minds and hopefully, their votes! Chensiyuan 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

James Milner

I feel the bit about being a ball boy is a bit too trivial for the lead, however no one else pointed it out so I think you should be OK leaving it in. Dave101→talk  17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence starting Manager Sam Allardyce said at the end of the Style of Play section - the reference is nufcblog.com. The thing with the part about the u-21 racism incident is that he didn't say much to the media, whereas the likes of Nedum Onuoha spoke at greater length about it (incidentally, the Sky ref didn't work for me, don't know whether its a temporary problem or the page no longer exists). For the "off the pitch" section, if it is genuinely the case that he rarely speaks publically about off-field matters, then that fact may itself be worth mentioning. Oldelpaso 19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think splitting it into club sections would be better than by season. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Milner Career section

I'd say by clubs. Mattythewhite 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As it'd only be Leeds and Newcastle, I'd say clubs as well. Gran² 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too. For a fanzine, his season-by-season impact will be useful, but for an encyclopedia, it doesn't read well. For any individual, I'd be looking to divide his career thematically, with change of clubs a useful one, along with major injury, first cap etc. Milner's career is still pretty short - the danger here will be inclusion of lots of less notable material because he's not yet achieved all that much. What I mean is, (and here's a very harsh way of putting it) let's say he goes on to be a modern day Pele - how much of what is currently recorded would still be worthy of retaining? --Dweller 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say by clubs as well. Dave101→talk  16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go with clubs. To me it is more encyclopedic and everything else is oriented towards clubs. The infobox lists his clubs as does the navbox at the bottom.

(n.b. could you leave the message on my talk page next time and not my userpage! ;)Woodym555 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As Captain Hans Geering would say, "Clop"... (okay, club)... The Rambling Man 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

not by season, imagine if he plays during 15 seasons, by clubs is better, or even better separate his carrer in several distinctive parts/periods. Dingy 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Pile-on support for dividing it by clubs. --Boricuaeddie 18:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well pointless really saying this now but yeah, do it by club as i did with Marc Pugh, it got GA --Childzy ^{(Talk|Images)} 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to a ninth indent, but I will go for 'by club'. 'By season' could get messy in t'future.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By club, seems to be the way every other footballer, manager, coach etc is done.

Hi - got your message - I prefer splitting by club - by season means that you get lots of small stubby one-paragraph sections, and if it were applied to players like Peter Shilton or Stanley Matthews the articles would get ridiculous. I think it's better to have flowing prose so sections per club. Of course, if a player spent his entire career or a large portion at one club, you could split it into smaller sections, but to do one for each season is over the top, in my view.

I haven't done a decent review of the James Milner article but at a glance it looks quite good, by the way. Good work! Qwghlm 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think listing by club would be the better option; it is far easier to read, listing by season could get messy. Readers usually search for specific club info first, so I think it would stand out more and be easier on the eye in general. Hope this helps. hawksworthm 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay heres the thing do you see Lampard's page, thats how you divide, its easier in reading. --Yu5uF 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

From your activity and the date on the template, it seems the template's ready to be removed from the top of this page! Welcome back. --Dweller 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sky Sports link

Sorry, I can't find a link. I searched 'Opta' on Sky Sports and there were no results so I guess they may have just got rid of that section altogether. You could search 'James Milner' on a variety of newspaper sites and see if any pundits talk about his strenghts and weaknesses. Sir-Nobby 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses

Ok cheers. I'll give it a good copy edit when I get the chance. It's had a few changes since reaching FA status. SteveO 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[4]

England Squad UEFA Euro 2000

Hey, this template you made is probably going to have to go up for deletion, as the general concensus on WP:FOOTY is that national squad templates for FIFA World Cups are the only ones worth having. Mattythewhite 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the template as it is a recreation of one previously deleted following a TfD debate (see here and WP:CSD#G4 for details). Oldelpaso 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the use of rollback on your edits, but its several times quicker than removing the template links manually. Oldelpaso 16:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I noticed that you like to make main page reqeusts for random articles and I'd like to ask that you not request that The Simpsons be the TFA for September 23 or any other date. I already have a date in mind that I would like to see the page as the TFA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Milner

Fine, it's not just about removing the whole thing, hopefully you understand why it simply doesn't form part of an encyclopaedic article. Keep anything you think would appear in Encyclopaedia Britannica and delete the rest. The Rambling Man 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Robson FAC

Hello. Thanks for your comment. I've addressed your concern so please re-consider your oppose vote unless you have more comments to add. The Rambling Man 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, last time you commented on a FAC of mine (Ipswich Town F.C.) I addressed all of your concerns but you didn't return to the review at all. Would you be generous enough to do so in this case when you get a chance? Thanks. The Rambling Man 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome comments, thanks. Dweller and I have addressed them all I think. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your attention to detail and comments. I've responded once again. Great job. The Rambling Man 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Once more, thanks. I've have made final responses to your additional comments. Thanks for being so detailed. The Rambling Man 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Robson FAC page

Hi Buc. Your laudably detailed contributions at the FAC are making the page extremely cluttered - and WP:FAC is a nightmare - see its talk page for the comments about how long the page has become!

Can I suggest the following. Draw a line under your debate at the FAC, leaving a simple comment - do you believe that the article as it currently is, is worthy of FA status? Then please take any unresolved issues to the article talk page.

Any and all of the editors who've worked on the article will be keen to make the article as good as possible and we have plenty of space there to debate your concerns, without cluttering the FAC page to the detriment of people trying to load WP:FAC (especially those on slower servers). Thanks. --Dweller 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, the page (and therefore WP:FAC which includes the Robson page) is becoming very very long and it's causing a real problem at WP:FAC (see WT:FAC where people are complaining about it!). If you don't think it's FA material, say so at FAC. If you do, say so at FAC. Then (regardless of that decision) please take any outstanding issues to the article talk page. For instance, you may decide it's a FA worthy article, but there are 3 small issues you'd like addressed, so say at the FAC it's FA worthy and take the small issues to the article talk page. --Dweller 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I've just seen your last post to the FAC page... looks like this thread is academic anyway. Sorry to bother you. --Dweller 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

I won't mind being around to prepare the article for FAC, but I still have some doubts about the article. Maybe we could get a proper peer review done, and as seen from the Duncan FAC, some books on Henry would be useful. Otherwise, I've pretty much scoured the net as best as I can to fill up the details on his bio. Chensiyuan 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 Canadian Grand Prix FAC

Maybe. But I never remember seeing your comments on the Malaysian FAC. Davnel03 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Davnel03 07:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nethertheless, if I'm too be honest, the article has so many problems (mentioned on FAC), that you should of took it to peer review first. Infact, you actually did, but failed to list it. Davnel03 11:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

England national rugby union team FAC

Hi, I've addressed your concerns and added some comments. Please strike out what you can and let me know what more needs to be done. I've also added those two references I mentioned. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 03:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've dealt with all your objections. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed, or if you need me to explain/justify certain things. Are there any reasons to continue to object to the FAC? - Shudde ^talk 23:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but could you please deal with this soon? :-) Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 00:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Buc thanks for your comments. Would you be able to strike what I've done? It would make it easier to know where I stand. Thanks a lot. - Shudde ^talk 04:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed your most recent concerns. It would help me a lot if you could strike what you are happy with. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 10:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thierry Henry

I've left some comments at the Peer Review. Mattythewhite 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland national football team FAC

I have attempted to address your concern. Could you take another look at the article? Oldelpaso 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now contains material about the crest. Are there any other reasons for your opposition? Oldelpaso 11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tennis player article layout

There are no hard and fast guidelines, though there is an open project to fix that. Personally, I think that existing player articles tend to focus too much on statistics and individual results, rather that the narrative of the player's life and career. The Roger Federer article is an example of this. It's mostly a year-by-year list of his victories, followed by an actual list of his victories presented in various formats. And if that weren't enough, a list of his records has been spun off into a separate article. If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to voice them on the tennis WikiProject page. --dantheox 18:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments

Hello Buc. I can see you're back and editing Milner. Would you be good enough to address the comments of the various FAC editors who have asked you to go back and revise your comments? In particular you have comments outstanding at Scotland national football team and England national rugby union team which you ought to deal with. Thanks. The Rambling Man 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you're very busy but these editors would really appreciate some of your time. The Rambling Man 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Milner

I'm sure you'll be glad to know I've made a few comments at the peer review. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask a couple of copyeditors to comb through the article to make the prose more elegant, if you're serious about making it FA. Placing a request on LOCE usually takes months, so I'd suggest asking any copyeditors you know personally. Chensiyuan 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing it and as you would know it's not just me who's been saying it. There's really nothing much on Milner to talk about as far as his life off the pitch is concerned, so one can't be faulted for that. Chensiyuan 15:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Objectively speaking I don't think there's a legitimate objection to there being nothing about him in that area. It certainly won't affect my vote -- if I ever object it would be on other grounds. The FA criteria is for the article to be comprehensive, but that doesn't mean having content for the sake of having. Chensiyuan 15:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The most relevant things you can talk about are that he's close to his family, he's uncontroversial and never in the limelight, but that's about it. Having a stubby section is always problematic though. Chensiyuan 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more to add to the PR. As said, a really good copyedit would be very helpful. Chensiyuan 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not about to support it; I'd just wait for more to weigh in with suggestions. Chensiyuan 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Milner Off the pitch

If that's all you can find, just leave it as it is for now. Better to have some info there on his playing style than none at all. I'm sure Opta will do a profile on him sooner or later on Sky Sports and you can take a lot from those. Sir-Nobby 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. If you could find any information on any sponsorship deals Milner may have, then that might be worth including. Dave101→talk  19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, keep it. It's referenced, if largely very trivial. I recommend binning "He also owns a PlayStation, a BMW X5 and two Canaan hounds." as excessively trivial, however.
• Worth including the full maturity quote ("Off the field, Milner displays a maturity that belies his years, though unlike Rooney, who shares a house with his girlfriend, he still lives at home with his parents and sister.") - follow WP:QUOTE on format)
• "He has never been reported to have said anything controversial or been involved in any controversial incidents and rarely speaks to the media about anything outside of football." must be referenced or removed, in my opinion. You can't just depend on other editors not disproving something.
• If referenced/kept, consider reordering first two sentences, so that it's a) he's not controversial, on the contrary, b) he is supportive... See what I mean?

Hope that helps. --Dweller 11:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disproving a negative.

That's my point exactly. The comment is OR, as you can't prove it. Just take it out. --Dweller 19:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If sourced. --Dweller 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Off the pitch

Hi. I solicited a third party opinion from a long-standing editor whose opinions I respect. Please see User_talk:!!#A_little_review. I think Milner's article needs a section like this. The trouble is that he is so young (and so banal) that there's really very little that's interesting / encyclopedic that can be said about him. Let me know what you think of !!'s comments. Cheers, --Dweller 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with !!, a lot of the information there (as I've said before) is excruciatingly trivial. Go as Dweller suggests, take !!'s opinion seriously. The Rambling Man 21:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent... good job. --Dweller 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Milner

Ok, so you're keen to push this forward but it's a bit weird to start moving the time of your messages on my talk page like you did in this edit. I'd suggest you get on with FAC now if you're that keen and stop strangely changing your old edits. The Rambling Man 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the request to copyedit James Milner. I've been a bit busy the last couple of days so haven't had chance to look at it properly yet, but I'll start on it tomorrow. One thing I did notice, though, was the image you've uploaded: you've added a CC copyright tag, but from the looks of the website you got it from, you might have to change that to copyrighted with a fair use rationale (you will definitely need this for FAC). I'll have a proper look later on (ie. when it is not 5.00 am). --carelesshx _talk 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to your questions...

• What are these large hyphens (—) for?

They serve to break the flow of a sentence — a bit like this one. the Manual of Style (WP:DASH) specifies that they should be used in this format. I am going to go back and re-word some of those bits though, as there are too many of them.

• You removed quotation marks, I added then in to remove any POV issues.

Most of the bits in quotation marks are POV of whoever wrote the article it references. Removing them doesn't make the text more or less POV but it doesn't make it look nicer. This is largely a personal thing, as there isn't a specific guideline in the MoS (as far as I know).

• The image you entered into the Leeds section show him playing for England and is from only a few months ago so it doesn’t really fit.

The two images in question screwed up the formatting of the page in their previous locations. I moved the Under-21 image because the Leeds United section mentions that that was when he was originally called up, and to space the images out a bit more. In any case, the image caption does not mention when the picture was taken, however if it is very obviously wrong, it can be moved.

• Likewise the image in “Style of play” has nothing to do with his Style of play.

This image doesn't really fit anywhere as far as I can tell. I put it in that section to fix the formatting of the article rather than delete it. If you can find a better place for it, I have no problem with moving it.

• You mention a problem with one of the images. Which one and why is it a problem?

The image Image:Milner2.JPG. You have added a Creative Commons copyright tag to it, but I looked on the source website and the image appears to be copyrighted. You must either change the copyright tag to a non-free tag and add a fair use rationale, or replace it with a free image (see WP:NONFREE) for a better explanation.

• Check the contradictory sentence again, I’ve tried to fix it.

Will do.

• I think the sentence at the start of the Career section is redundant and looks a bit odd since it barely one line before a massive paragraph.

Headings followed immediately by sub-headings look horrible and are generally discouraged. I'll go back and try and write a bit more, but I personally think that even a short sentence like that looks better than nothing at all.

--carelesshx _talk 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have another look at the "Style of play section tonight. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I've been busy and not logged in. --carelesshx _talk 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Milner/Villa

I think that at this stage of his career, that loan spell was significant, as it breaks the period before and after he became successful. I think the way you have it now is good. In five years time, it'd probably submerge into a section about before he became a 1st team regular. That said, I have no strong opinions - if you have a different idea, run it past me. --Dweller 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Milner

Hello there, thanks for the message: not too sure why you asked me specifically, but I had a look anyway. I think splitting up the career section by club is the best way to go: by the end of a full career, having 15-20 separate headings for all the different seasons will look messy and unclear. With the club it's much easier just to focus on the important points. Anything else you'd like an opinion on? I'm keen to help with any football-related stuff. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 15:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol fair enough - the article looks good! It's obviously been quite a while since I signed in to my account, and I forgot to look at the date. Like I say though, if you need a hand with anything else, let me know. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC urgents

Why did you remove Blyth, Northumberland from the FAC urgents list? ([5]) Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Milner FAC

I've made some comments for you at the FAC. The Rambling Man 10:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Barring other oppose votes the FAC is likely to pass -- but my reservations remain. Besides, even if it's new feedback--which it is not--it is a tad unrealistic to expect someone to not come up with new comments. Considering, especially, the article is constantly undergoing change. Chensiyuan 16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Mention what? It's a reiteration of the same comments from the outset. Chensiyuan 08:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Then it's patently a case of not grasping the feedback I'm afraid. It would be rather different if I'd reneged on a representation along the lines of "okay let's go for FAC". Chensiyuan 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Got your message re. copy editing James Milner again. It looks like you're currently editing the page yourself, so if you let me know when you're done I'll have a look at it later tonight. --carelesshx _talk 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure if you're at liberty to strike out my vote. I've posted the question to Raul654 so he'd adjudicate over that. You see, you can't ask me to change my vote just because you think you've addressed my concerns etc. If I don't change my vote it means just that. It's clear from the FAC page history I'm keeping tabs on the situation. At the end of the day, my belief is that Raul654 will examine whether there's consensus and will ignore my oppose vote if he thinks I've no grounds to oppose. Chensiyuan 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As you'd notice Raul654 has said it's up to me to strike out the vote and how, even if I don't, you are free to say all my concerns are met. Whether that is true he'd decide I believe. I can't quite convey a point-by-point discourse on why criteria 1a is not met, one reason being that addressing them point-by-point does not necessarily ensure the article still coheres. It's a task done with a macro view to the overall shape of the article. Chensiyuan 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd look at the article, and I'd just do what I can to it. I am feeling more neutral towards it now rather than oppose. Chensiyuan 02:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't have to keep inviting me to read the latest version. I'm keeping tabs. You would notice however that in my last visit I picked up almost a dozen errors -- errors that really shouldn't be there. And these are new errors (generated by new edits), not old ones which I did not detect before. Chensiyuan 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have previously proposed with a slightly more complicated version proposed this at TFA and it was overwhelmingly rejected. This time we have a slight majority, but not a consensus although the vast majority are in favor of some sort of main page List inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lee Smith (baseball)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lee Smith (baseball). I have responded to all your comments. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you saw this message, but I replied to your comments (fixed almost all, I think) on the FAC page 5 days ago. Please comment! Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

James Milner

Hi, Buc. James Milner is a good, strong article that shows evidence of hard work. I don't think it's reached criterion 1a yet, though. Here is what I would change to get it there. (I have not read all the comments made so far, so apologies if it isn't all new. Also, it's all about the writing, not the content. Seems like you've been over content very thoroughly.)

• Print out a copy of the article to read and scribble on. This always works better than editing on screen.
• At this point you'll be cutting away much of your prose, rephrasing some bits, and refining the language to make it great. Don't avoid making the article shorter.
• Shift away from a fan's perspective to that of a neutral observer. I can tell that you wrote this because you think James Milner is an incredible footballer, and you want to know everything about him. Every aspect of his life is inherently interesting and may shed light on his talent. But try this: Read the article again as if you had never heard of Milner and didn't much care about football. Pretend you are bored with Milner. Dare the article to hold your interest.
• From this new perspective, notice what makes you want to stop reading. Cut away mercilessly at passages that now seem unnecessary. Be bold about it. Don't worry about cutting too much.
• Also notice what holds your interest the most and seems most important. Ask whether these items should be in a more prominent place in the article.
• Overall the piece reads like a survey of sport journalism. Try for something more like plain speech, with fewer of the common turns of phrase used by sport writers. WP:BETTER calls for a "businesslike" tone, but one that doesn't shut readers out. Here and there I feel shut out of this article because I don't follow Premier League football.
• Specifics? OK. -- There's too much about how so-and-so "taught him how to deal with" such-and-such, and the specific lesson goes unmentioned. These should probably be cut. -- "However, Leeds United's fortunes differed and they struggled in the league." I'm sure you don't mean differed. A shorter sentence would be better. -- I never heard of Bobby Robson until now. Give a hint who he is, not just a link. Graeme Souness replaced him as what? Manager? -- I think I understand what is meant by Milner's "positive and unselfish approach." But I have no idea what it means that he "plays with a fair amount of pace." Explain. And what does it mean to "pick out" a teammate's forward run? -- The several comparisons with other notable players seem like mere fan-talk, as do the statements about what a wonderful character Milner has. Does this belong in a Wikipedia article? Probably not.
• On finishing the article I'm left wondering exactly what makes Milner notable. Is he the youngest scorer in a Premier League game? Was switching from Leeds to Newcastle a big deal? Does his quiet way of life set him apart from other footballers? Is he likely to be remembered ten years after he stops playing? The notability question ought to be answered at the beginning of the article.

Thanks for inviting me to read it. I hope this helps. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes. I'll have another look this evening or tomorrow and write more then; this afternoon I have a 200-mile drive ahead of me. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stuff happened. I've printed out the article with your latest changes and will try to return some suggestions today. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Trescothick FAC

Hi,

Would you be so kind as to take another look at the Tresco FAC (here) and either leave more comments or give it a yay or nay regarding promotion?

Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,

More of your queries have now been addressed, I don't think we are all going to agree about the centuries/half-centuries (+scores) issue, but I hope that doesn't influence your decision too much. In any case, would you either find more problems or give support or oppose?

Many thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I have replied and made changes to the article based on your comments. Please reply back on the linked page as soon as possible. Thanks, Davnel03 16:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"You have to do it just because I said so" -- Could you direct me to the Wikipedia policy page that says you are infallible? Thanks. Mark83 19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the change you made. Since it was a mistake let me apologise for the comment above. Mark83 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologises for the way I commented back on the FAC. Guess we all make typos from time to time!! Could you possible look back at the FAC, and possibly consider changing your opinion from oppose to support. I've responded to all your comments, so I'd be greatful if you could look over them again. Thanks, Davnel03 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly change your opinion from oppose to support, seeing as I have responded to your comments? Sorry to leave another comment, BTW. Davnel03 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to them. Davnel03 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done another batch of changes and a load of feedback. Davnel03 08:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it

I found the page a few days a go, and think its very useful, if your looking for help with it, then I'll gladly assist whenever I can (I've got it watchlisted now). Gran² 15:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

re: copyediting

I'm not particularly good at it. You should ask User:Cricketgirl - she is good. Sir-Nobby 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like football, but I do enjoy copyediting. What do you need? *Cremepuff222* 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

okay, I'll copyedit it. If I find anything decent to add, I'll do that too. I've always wanted to help make a featured article. :) *Cremepuff222* 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting for Milner article

Hi Buc, I would recommend putting in a request at LOCE. I did it with History of Stoke City F.C. and the article wouldn't have become a FA without their help. The article goes through copyediting and proofreading by separate editors so it's very detailed. Dave101→talk  08:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buc, apologies for not getting back to you sooner about James Milner. I realise that you've just left your third request forme to copyedit it, but I'm no huge fan of football and I would recommend that you take it to WP:LoCE, even though things are a little slow over there. Thanks. Cricketgirl 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buc. Copyediting an article actually takes a lot of time, up to an hour. Given the limited amount of time I have on my hands anyway (see the notes at the top of my talk page), I'm only working on things that specifically interest me. There are plenty of people at LoCE who are not football fans but will be happy to copyedit the article anyway. Thanks for your interest. Cricketgirl 14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Charlie Mcdonnell

A tag has been placed on Charlie Mcdonnell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick

You are invited to comment at the above FAC as your comments were very helpful in the last one! SGGH ^speak! 11:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, we are working through your comments, wondered if you would like to review what we have done so far? We are keen not to let this FAC stagnate like the last one! SGGH ^speak! 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:request

I am alright, though I am no Tony or Sandy. Which article is this regarding, Milner? Woodym555 19:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look at it tommorrow for you. Tony is busy at the moment as the big red letters say at the top of his page. So, don't feel aggrieved that haven't got a response yet. Woodym555 19:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Buc, a little friendly suggestion, could you not be a bit more tactful with you requests? I think people will be a bit more amenable if you show some politeness, or a little less abrupt. Leaving "Copyedit request"..."James Milner. Trying to get it to FA status. Buc 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)", is a bit machinelike do you not think? Could you not say something like, Hi Sandy, could you please take a look at the football player James Milner for me? The article was previously an FAC, but failed due to prose concerns from a number of reviewers. Could you please take a look when you get the chance? Thanks. It is just a suggestion, as it is , if i was Sandy, I wouldn't reply to your "request", it seems more like a demand. Woodym555 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[6]

Everton F.C. FAR.

Hey Bole2, I've done some work on this since you listed it at FAR this afternoon, in particular with adding citations. I think I've increased the number of references by about 25%. Let me know if there's more to do. -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

2005 UEFA Champions League Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, something you could do for the article, is to edit the section on the actual final. The Rambling Man said it needed it. I have put some new photos on there. F9T 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for the main page

It might be generous of you to consider other editors in your requests for the main page. You currently have two official requests and several unofficial ones laced through the nominations. As there are only five nomination slots and thousands of editors on wikipedia - perhaps hundreds with FAs, might you consider only nominating one article at a time? Please give other editors a chance. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Milner

Hey Buc, I don't think it would be wise to use FAC as a peer review. I will try and look at it tommorrow though I plan on working on Premier League as well. If you were to put it up at FAC, it would be quickly opposed because the previous opposition has not been addressed. I understand that is not through lack of trying though ;) When people have the time, I am sure they will be happy to help. Hold on :) !! Woodym555 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

James Milner

I've noticed you wanted to take this to FAC. I'll take a look at it for you at some point to help out, but this instantly jumped out at me as making no sense whatsoever - I don't know what's gone on with it - at the start of Early Life.

'He was able to persuade Min Rawdon Meadows, which Coulson called "prestigious". In Rawdon's victory in the final, Milnelner to come and play for his Rawdon side in several tournaments. This included a tournament ir scored four goals.' Peanut4 (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi sorry I didn't get back to you before the PR was archived. I've changed a few (mostly minor) things in the article. Feel free to change anything if you don't like any of them. Overall I think it's a good, thorough read. Obviously some other feedback has remarked about various things, including the subordinate clauses. But a few other things I've noticed.

• Do you need the paragraph at the start of the career section? It seems only to act as a summary for the rest, which is already in the lead.
• Milner was sent on a month-long loan and then He spent a month with. I'd remove one use of month.
• the chairman of the team at the time - add his name.
• It looked probable he would soon start a game. I'd lose this sentence, it adds nothing, is WP:OR and WP:POV.
• Maybe start an international section and move most of that stuff to it, while making lesser references in the club section, so as not to muddy the water as much. Though this is probably personal preference.

Any questions, give me a shout. Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Trying to write FL

I have dealt with the naming issue. I have moved the article to Leeds seasons. Now you just need to copy your sandbox version onto the seasons article. I would do it asap, seems better to have it their sooner rather than later. Excellent work so far. Some helpful hints: You need to try and get rid of the redlinks. It is a big no-no to some people at WP:FL This is mainly due to the fact that lists are meant to link inter-related articles under the fl criteria. You need to expand the WP:LEAD to completely summarise the list and introduce Leeds United to the reader. Add in an image to the Lead as well. A particularly successful manager perhaps? Or Ridsdale? ;) Woodym555 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Turn them blue. Woodym555 (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd

Sorry, I had to undo your recent rename of the article. There has been a long-standing battle on whether the article should be on Wikipedia. Most of the earlier articles were advertisements, and were removed (put in a toaster). Anyway, the result is a bunch of redirected articles - most notably Angry Video Game Nerd which are also protected and can only be edited by admin. Anytime the main article is moved, all the redirects break and we need admin help. It's a bit of a pain (like playing Fester's Quest). Cheers! - DevinCook (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Leeds season

Thanks for your additions but I think the club's performances in the Full Members Cup will need a separate ref. Do you know of one? and if so could you add it in.

On a side note I will be nominating to be a FL once I've got rid of all the red links. Buc (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the WWII stuff is really notable enough. At the very least it should be in the same style as the rest of the table and needs a ref. Buc (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Leeds United A.F.C. seasons, if this is going to follow the standards set by the other seasons articles then the managers shouldn't appear here. None of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. seasons, Liverpool F.C. seasons, Arsenal F.C. seasons, Chelsea F.C. seasons or Manchester United F.C. seasons have the manager on the table. The information on when the managers where hired or departed is available on Leeds United A.F.C. managers including the months therefore which seasons they were in charge is already available to users. Also the information on the club nickname was removed as it isn't relevant to seasons the club have taken part in. In is relevant to the club in general however the page for general relevant information is the main page terefore this information should appear on Leeds United A.F.C. and not the seasons page. I hope you do not feel I am trying to start an edit war with you or that I am trying to take Ownership of the article, however if this article is heading in the direction of the standards already set for seasons articles then the these alterations should really be made. Regards. Chappy^T_C 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chappy here, the managers aren't really neccessary here. Whilst I see how having the Honours next to a manager, it is better presented on a managers list. Having the list of managers here squashes the table, especially for those with a lower screen resolution. You can have too much information in a table. Woodym555 (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't think the WWII Leagues should be included here. They are unofficial and are not included on other seasons articles for because of that. That is only my opinion on it, you will get more ones at WP:FOOTY or WP:FLC. Woodym555 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, spare a thought for people running less than 1280x1024... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it better to have more info. Just because some lists don't have it doesn't prohbit all lists from having it. It's not like the exsamples you gave are even FL. Buc (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the league a team is in defines the standard the seasons article should follow however I can see this is your opinion. As I have previously stated, I myself feel that since the managers information is available on Leeds United A.F.C. managers it doesn't really need to be repeated on Leeds United A.F.C. seasons. I would like the average attendance to be an extra column on the Leeds seasons page however I think canvassing opinion from other users is the better idea before this edit goes ahead. What would your view on this be Bole? Chappy^T_C 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, managers don't belong there. Plus for managers who don't complete seasons, and caretaker managers it's going to be a mess. Ave attendance, perhaps... The Rambling Man 13:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Attendances, yes, why not, because they're season specific they would suit the article well. The Rambling Man 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I agree, a worthy addition. Just keep the column widths into consideration and information overkill. Yet it seems the sensible place for them. Woodym555 14:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you go for FLC as soon as you like now. The Rambling Man 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There was just one thing, isn't round 6 of the FA Cup the quarter final round? If so, you should use QF (as described in the abbreviations)... The Rambling Man 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, QF isn't used anywhere in the article! The Rambling Man 15:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's more convenanted for someone reading the table to have the current season. It lok really out of date without it. Buc (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I myself feel only completed competitions should appear on the page, so in the case of this season the only information that should appear on the page would be the cup competitions Leeds have now exited. I feel it isn't the best idea to have more than one page constantly updated to include the current stats of Leeds' participation in a competition, and since the league stats appear on Leeds United A.F.C. 2007-08 season it doesn't need to be updated constantly on the seasons page aswell. I do however also feel that this page should really try to comply with the standards all other seasons articles for other clubs. None of these seem to include the current season constantly updated so I feel it is the best idea to leave it off to try and conform to these standards. This also seem to help with the nomination for FA (the article not being set-up to have to be constantly updated) which is another argument not to have this information here. Apologies my view point does not conform with yours, this is just the way I see the situation. Regards. Chappy^T_C 19:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

How about I make a template with the current season stats in it and put that in both articles. That way only one update is needs when Leeds play. Buc (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't feel this should appear on the seasons article as I feel that the Leeds article should follow the standards set out by the other articles. I can tell you feel strongly about this and understand your frustration, but the general consensus, unfortunately from your point of view, is to only include completed seasons. Chappy^T_C 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you're helping me with this list do you think you could help with the FL nomination. Buc (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look at the nomination page and make and suggested changes to help it pass. Chappy^T_C 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Last Season in Top Flight

In regards to the season Leeds were relegated from the Premiership this was 2003/04, hence why this was changed to 2004. Please see here for the 2003/04 league table. In 2001/02 Leeds finished 5th and qualified for the Uefa Cup. Just so you know why I have changed it. Chappy^T_C 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:List of Seattle Seahawks first-round draft picks

Yeah I am, I currently have List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks at WP:FLC, but an editor expressed to me privately that it is better to go through WP:PR to make sure everything is good, so I did it with Seattle. I figured I will make sure everything is good, and then throw it into FLC, sadly though, it seems the process is pretty slow there. But yeah, so hopefully one day it will get up to FL. My plan is to created this type of list for each team. I think, counting those two, about 12 have been created, so hopefully it will be my pet project and I can get them all up to FL. Thanks for your comments though! Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note I realized you made the Bucs list, so I dont know if youre interested, but I created a specific category for these lists, Category talk:Lists of first-round draft picks by NFL team. I made a list of those that have been created and the ones that need to be created. Just to let you know.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On another seperate note, I was wondering what you thought about List of Houston Texans (NFL) draft selections. Unlike the others, this lists all the draft selections in each round. Now although this is all good information, and I hate removing good info, I dont think that we would be able to keep up with this article over the years. I mean could you imagine if the Texans play 50 more seasons. That list would be huge!! I have completed the list in the format of its predecessors here but I am hesitant at replacing the page and then moving it to List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks. Any thoughts on the subject?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:What do you think

I think it looks great. One thing that would be raised in FLC would be the redlinks. So if you could fill the redlinks with stubs about the players, that would help a lot. For the Green Bay Packers one, I had to make like 12 stubs for the players. Other than that it looks great! Also, you may want to delink repetitive For the DYK, I would do something with Archie Manning, Dante Stallworth, Reggie Bush, or Deuce. Those are interesting people. Good job!!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

James Milner

I think it makes a good GA but I won't support it at FA. That said if you put it up for FA I would just abstain from voting. Peanut4 did a good job at weeding out subtle mistakes (and more), but I just don't find the article very inspiring. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 18 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 07:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

TFA

When you add stuff to the long range TFA list, can you please put a rationale for the date requested? Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:New Orleans Saints picks FLC

Its not so much that we don't agree, its that you failed to try and reach consensus by discussion. You just dismissed mine and someone else's advice about pretty much everything that was brought up. The only two people who commented on your FLC said that pictures of the actual picks is better than a picture of the stadium. I guess life just isn't fair. If the list truly deserves to be promoted than you will get enough supports. Its sad because I really want this list to be a FL because I think we could get a WP:FT, but the way that you completely dismissed what I said, without even trying to find middle ground has rubbed me bad, and I truly feel that the issues I have raised are issues that need to be addressed, because the past 13 or so lists like these all go by the same format, which means that it is accepted. I would never make a WP:POINT by opposing just because I disagreed with someone, I just think that the way that you brought an article to a peer review forum yet don't heed to the advice of your peers is not what Wikipedia is about. I don't hold any grudges against anyone so I wish you the best of luck with your editing, but I cannot change my vote until these issues are addressed.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in response, I left a comment on the WP:FLC page, if this compromise is ok, then I will feel ok in supporting. If not, then I will just recuse myself from voting and let others decide its fate. A little suggestion though, renominating a day after it failed, after having done absolutely nothing to change the article is of poor taste. Imagine if everyone just kept renominating a list after it failed. We would go crazy at WP:FLC. Also, if you ever go back to FLC, remember that you will have to at least work with other editors, peer review is where people come to meet in the middle, so of course thats what I was looking for. Good luck.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am not terribly happy about that. The only think I can think of would be to contact the website host and ask him/her for a list of primary sources, because I doubt that this website is just making these things up. NFL.com doesnt do individual notes, but I think each team does in a special source (not on-line sadly) but Im not sure.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the only thing I could think of is to contact the website, because it looks like they are compiling this list from team records and NFL records, which are reliable sources, which in turn make this site reliable. Good luck.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds seasons

There's still some points from my review you haven't followed up. For what it's worth, I would oppose it at FLC, particularly because the image doesn't seem relevant, the current season is still in there, and the references need tidying up. There might be a few other things but that's what I'd do first.

As for the current peer review, try adding a not on the Football Project talk page to gee people up, or leave messages on people's talk pages. Try also Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for any potential people to help out. Peanut4 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because there isn't a better free image doesn't mean another cannot be uploaded or otherwise found. If everything else is sorted I won't be opposing simply because of the image because with a better caption it will work and be relevant to Leeds seasons.

The references and footnotes need to be separated into two sections. There's plenty of spelling mistakes, missing full stops and grammar errors in the list of references and they don't align with the correct place as I've previously pointed out.

If you want to get it to FL then you will need to take out the current season I'm not the only person to have said that.

Above all, check out other season articles which are FL - indeed try all of them and take the best bits and improve yours. E.g., the footnotes and referenes for Aston Villa F.C. seasons are excellent. Peanut4 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please read the peer review? Thanks Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the answer to your previous question about references and footnotes. They should be separated. Have you actually looked at Aston Villa F.C. seasons as I suggested? I presume not. Peanut4 (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Aston Villa F.C. seasons and look how the footnotes AND, I repeat AND, references sections, note sections plural, appear. Peanut4 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Split them up (inline references and external links) as you were told to do at the previous FLC and as I suggested like Aston Villa F.C. seasons and most other seasons articles to be honest. Peanut4 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything else is on the PR page, which is where it's probably best to put your questions in case someone else can add their input. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Former Featured articles

The project above which you had indicated an interest in joining at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Featured articles. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Milner again

Hi Buc, as you may know I have been on hoilday and not edited for a couple of weeks. I will take a look at the article tommorrow before the game. Hope you had a good Christmas and have a Happy New Year. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is better Buc, much better. I stil think it has some "fanzine issues" though and some of the more ardent FA watchers and prose afficionados would have some problems with it. I will take a look at it tonight and try and Copyedit it tommorrow. Woody (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds seasons again

Buc, you don't need to ask me if you should renom the list at FLC, go for it. However it's worth noting that I will still be opposing as, amongst other things, you continue to insist on including the current season. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Buc, as I said before, no need to ask me if it's good enough. Let the community decide. Put it up at FLC and if you've addressed all of the relevant concerns from the PR/last FLC then there shouldn't be a problem, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Buc, I wasn't the only one objecting to the presence of the current season. I still think there's no need for the final line of the table, but other than that I can't see a big problem with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Buc, I am getting slightly worried about your ownership of Leeds United A.F.C. seasons. It is not upto other people to "convince" you, nor is it only up to you when the list is nominated for FLC. The consensus of editors at WP:FOOTY was to not have current seasons in the list. Woody (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop it being FL, as long as it stays similar to what it is now, without the current seasons. The majority view is what wikipedia is built on Buc; Consensus trumps all egos. Woody (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to, that is the nature of consensus. Woody (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll nominate it instead then? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No Buc, since you seem to have gone off the idea of supporting the Leeds seasons article then perhaps someone else should nominate it and look after the comments? I think you'll be the only oppose now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm going to run it through a peer review then take it to FLC myself. I'm sure I can get it promoted. Any help on the way from you would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your comment has attracted a couple of responses.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

TSM DVD cover

Well what does an image/description of the DVD cover really offer to the page? I mean, if I came to that page wanting to learn about the film, what's on the DVD cover isn't really something I'd find that informative. The isn't anything that special about the DVD cover, all it does is illustrate the overall film, which the film poster does a perfectly good job of. So I don't think that the image, or any real description of the DVD cover, is needed. Gran² 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But is that really are good claim of fair use? Some people might want to have an embeded video of the whole film in the plot section, so they can watch the film for free, but it doesn't mean it should happen. As the DVD cover isn't really that special or notable then including an image of it, just to show what it looks like isn't the best idea. Gran² 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I was going to wait until tomorrow, but I figured that Monday was a good day to start an FAC. Plus, even if it does get an Oscar nom, the trend with the article is not to add any award, won or lost, until after the ceremony. And, that isn't really the hardest thing to do. Gran² 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:SimpsonsMovieDVD.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SimpsonsMovieDVD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Buc (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

canvassing

There is nothing wrong with asking for other opinions, but the way you worded it is a definite violation of the Wikipedia:Canvassing. I am not saying you purposely asked for votes, but you should have worded it better. You said "You appear to be an active member of the NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs support votes in order to pass. If you feel it is a FL could you please show support. Thanks for any help in advance." In which you clearly stated that it still needed support and you clearly implied that the person should support the list. An FLC is not a vote. It is a process meant to make a list as good as possible, and there could be seven supporters and one opposer, but if that oppose is based on the FL criteria, the list will fail. A betterway to phrase your question would have simply been "could you please take a look at this article for me, which is an FLC." That way, you are only asking for a review.

Because of this, Jwalte04's comments will now be disregarded and if either Zzyzx11 or TheHoosierState89 add support, the nom could be restarted. So in the future, please avoid doing this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

James Milner

Finally got back to a review of James Milner. Congratulations on making GA. I did the requested copy-edit, so now it's waiting on someone else to do a proofread. Nice work. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I will proofread today or tommorrow morning. I was going to do it today but British Airways Flight BA038 distracted me. Woody (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I have absolutely no intention of going back and working on that article. I'm too busy working with another project on Wikipedia, and really don't have time to dedicate to that. Also, one article which I created and expanded, in the professional wrestling field of Wikipedia, December to Dismember (2006) is now a featured article because of my effort on it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:San Diego Chargers seasons

I think it looks good, I did a copy-edit of the intro, there were some grammatical mistake, so you may want to check that out. Other than that just finish the individual seasons and I think it looks good.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds seasons

Please, at least wait more than a day before trying to reinsert all the edits the community disagreed with... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't say you weren't allowed to edit, I said please don't re-insert all the bits and pieces you wanted in the article which the community decided through all the peer reviews and failed FACs didn't belong there. Curious timing, that you waited for the FLC to finish and immediately start editing... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there are plenty of comments at Milner's PR for you by the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try to insinuate I'd remove your edits because they're yours. You absolutely knew the community had worked damned hard to get the prose right, the lead compelling, etc over all the PRs and failed FLCs. Waiting for the FL to finish and then leaping in is really bad form. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you should have contributed at the PR or the FLC. You can't just turn up minutes after article promotion and change everything back to the way you want it to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! You saw the PR and the FLC. No-one's saying you can't edit but you know that pretty much everything you tried to add has already been discussed and considered inappropriate by several editors at previous PRs and FLCs. You don't own the article, I don't own the article, but consensus rules, as do rules of grammar. Your edits were inappropriate in content and timing and you know that. You've been told numerous times. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No-one's saying you can't edit anything, but what we are saying is that introducing grammatically incorrect phrases, POV, weasel words and things discussed and discounted in the numerous PRs and FLCs this article went through is inappropriate. Buc, stop it please, I'm getting tired of this, why not work on being constructive to articles that aren't at featured status? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm bored of this discussion really. The community worked hard to get a decent article and within half an hour or so of you realising it had been promoted you started changing prose and adding things we'd all discussed. Bad form. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:FL Nomination

No, of course not. Just try and have an open mind with other's and address their concerns. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans FLC

Hey Buc, I noticed you have withdrawn Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks. I have dealt with the formalities and Wiki paperwork. Please let GimmeBot deal with the nom and talkpage. I would strongly recommend a peer review for it. I actually don't think there is much wrong with it. It was not attracting comments due to procedural problems in reality. Woody (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Milner PR

Not really, though you only addressed one of my three points in the first place anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the Milner PR, I think I have gone as far as I dare, and as far as my patience can take me. Please take the outstanding issues on board and act on them before an FAC. Woody (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken them onboard though? Can you say you have thought about them and acted on them, or have you dismissed them out of hand? I am not talking simply about my issues, there are Dweller's and Rambling Man's as well. You have replied, but not acted upon perfectly actionable issues. I really have little else to say. Woody (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, I've got nothing more to add since you don't seem bothered by the comments I've already made. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your comment (and I don't believe you have replied to all of my comments, that's plain to see), I have no more to make. Thanks for asking. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bang Cartoon

I have nominated Bang Cartoon, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Cartoon. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jfire (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wii Sports FAC

Hi, I've tried to address the issues and comments you left on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wii Sports. I hope the changes done to Wii Sports will gain your support. Thank you for your time. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Barnstar

Uhh, I'm new at this... but I thought you deserve this... I don't know where to put it so I'll put it here.

		The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
		Congrats! Emily (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I thought you deserved it... lol :) Emily (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

While I certainly appreciate your help with the article, your edit contained a great many grammatical and spelling errors that I am attempting to fix now. Additionally, when moving information around, you did not move the corresponding references with them. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. Dlong (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You don't own the DVD and you want to nominate it? Come on, if you're going to seek out articles to nominate, at least know some information or own an access to it. xihix(talk) 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll be hard to find references for everything, but if I have time I'll see if I can find anything. I haven't really had time to do anything much on here recently, what with my exams approaching rapidly. Anyway I should have time this weekend, so I'll see what I can do. Gran² 10:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. You don't have to repost your message once a day. I'll take a look if I have time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's better than it was, good job, but you might want to get a few more comments first. However I'm not sure if Simpsons Crazy can be counted as a reliable source. We tend not to use SNPP either, but that should be alright. Anyway, well done. Gran² 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anfield

Thanks for your comments at the FAC, and your edits, however some of your edits had grammatical errors, I would advise you to be more careful whn editing. Anyway thanks for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Buc, just a note. When you cap comments, pls add your sig to the subject line on the cap, so I know it was capped by you.[7] I'm trying to avoid the scenario where someone other than the original reviewer caps off the comments. When I encounter a cap without a sig, I have to step back through the diffs to make sure the comments were hidden by the person who made them, indicating satisfaction that issues were addressed. Just add your sig to the subject line on the cap, OK? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok after going over the article again I think I have addressed all the issues you rose, look ver the article again if you would when you have time. NapHit (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC

See if your requests at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix were fulfilled. igordebraga ≠ 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust FAC

I have addressed many of the points that you had brought up at the FAC, as well as many of the comments from other editors, some of whom have changed their sentiment recently to "Support". Perhaps you could reevaluate your stance on the article, and see if you feel you could change your position in the current FAC? Cirt (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What outstanding issues would you suggest I address, and how can I address them, so that you would consider this article to be FA worthy? Cirt (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Per your comment at the FAC, I moved the info re: Stanley Cup from the Production section to the Cultural references section. Please let me know of any other specific ways that I could address any outstanding issues you have with the article that you feel are keeping The Last Temptation of Krust from attaining FA status. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I addressed 2 more of your FAC comments. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered getting involved with WP:DOH/TOPIC ? Cirt (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers seasons

Greetings, I believe all of the critiques of this page have been resolved. Thanks, PGPirate 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per this page, the proper format, in a nutshell, should mirror Chicago Bears seasons. That page has the current 2008 year listed. PGPirate 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to this:
    • Is this what you are referring to in the FLC nomination? PGPirate 20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2008	2008	NFL	NFC	South	--	--	--	--

PGPirate 14:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Hello. I believe all of the issues are complete for this FLC. If you have time, could you please review the article once more. Thanks, PGPirate 12:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charlie McDonnell

I have nominated Charlie McDonnell, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie McDonnell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jmlk17 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V peer review

Buc, you can't just do that - that PR has been closed. You need to remove what you just copied-and-pasted and create a new PR. Then don't just copy-and-paste the FA across into it, provide a summary of what's happened so far and what's wrong with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also you'll need to correctly close your withdrawn FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Buc, I've already told you, you should start a new peer review, not re-open an old one. Do not copy and paste from the withdrawn FAC into the old PR. Start a new one. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Final warning. I've even gone so far as to create a new peer review on your behalf - Wikipedia:Peer review/Treehouse of Horror V/archive3. If you copy and paste again (contravening GFDL) you will find yourself staring at a block.. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing?! I created the next peer review for you at archive3 and now you've created archive1 and copied-and-pasted again! Please stop this Buc, I don't want to block you but I will if you carry on doing this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Buc, I've already told everyone you've spammed. And for the very last time, do not copy and paste - it contravenes the GFDL. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information, I have once again removed your copy-and-paste as it contravenes the GFDL. Continuing to re-add it will lead me to block you and I really don't want to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your question

It looks pretty good to me, I dont have time to do a real good review right now. And about WP:FLC I have no clue as the standards should be lower since no team had really had that many coaches. I wouldnt oppose it just on the grounds of length, but you may run into others who feel that. Its hard to say because the head coaches lists havent really gone through FLC yet. I would try it out if I were you, just make sure you are open to suggestions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow Bowl (Green Bay)

Apparently Twinkle messed up and didn't finish this AfD for you, so I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to provide your rationale for deletion as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Cropped 250px-Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Cropped 250px-Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Cropped 250px-Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Buc (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coaches, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hi there, I'm new to AWB and I'm not entirely sure on how it works. I know you've helped in the past so I was wondering whether you could tell me what I need to do to use it. I've downloaded it here and I've also got the .NET framework but I don't know where to go from there. Cheers, Kaboooz LUFC ^T_C 14:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of List of youtube celebrities

I noticed that you added a link to a non-existant nomination (screw-up of Twinkle?) to today's AfDs. It was removed by someone as a non-existent nom, so if you really do want to go through AfD for this, you should probably renominate it. See WP:AfD for more info. Also, you should look into creating some archives for your talk pages. Srsly.  :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Snow Bowl etc

Hi Buc, well firstly I suggest you take a quick look at WP:COMMONNAMES. That should help for a start. Then there's always the chance to create redirects should other less common but perhaps often searched for names are used. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Snow Bowl (Green Bay)" is the most commonly known title - I'd probably expect to see a Snow Bowl page which is a disambiguation page leading to more formal and appropriately titled matches, e.g. Snow Bowl (Green Bay versus Tampa)" or maybe "Snow Bowl (1985)" (as it's been renamed I see!). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Shurmur

I have read the sports articles you have composed and they are great. I hope you can help me out on my article. I have been searching for people that will give some suggestions on how to make my Fritz Shurmur article better. Comments on the article will suffice. Thank you for your time and contributions to Wikipedia.Alexp34 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of Oakland Raiders head coaches, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Bobet 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Oakland Raiders head coaches

Would you like to go ahead and nom it for FLC? I made some fixes from the peer review. I think we got everything. Tell me what you think. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cropped 250px-Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Bole2!
We thank you for uploading Image:Cropped 250px-Lewis hamilton - 2008 Melb GP.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Denver Broncos seasons

On 4 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denver Broncos seasons, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Raiders seasons

Incompletion is not a reason for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because a.) "incomplete article" is not one of the reasons listed at WP:DEL#REASON, and b.) we have plenty of templates such as {{incomplete-list}} that are meant to indicate when an article's incomplete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP: GAN

You placed Metal Gear Solid up at GAN, and I have given it a review. There hasn't been any response since I first put the message up, and if my concerns aren't addressed, I may have to fail it. Please go and fix them - it shouldn't take more than an hour. --haha169 (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I'll check it out; just not immediately. I'm not too peeved with the reception section, since it fits GA criteria, just not FA. However the plot's size and prose should be priority. However, if you fix both, it will make pre-FAC much easier. --haha169 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply do not know WHY you did that, but you did. I am now really close to failing this article. See reasons on Metal Gear Solid talk page. Thank you. --haha169 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I see you are doing some productive edits. Keep it up, and it will be GA material in no time. I still wonder why you copied Brawl's reception. Just because it was mentioned as a good reception section in the peer review doesn't mean it should be copied over. If you want a better reception section, check the FA article, Golden Sun. Its quite an old game and was in a difficult situation like this article - not enough cites for reception. Check it out (the entire article as well), its a great model. --haha169 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Golden Sun is one of the oldest FAs excluding classics like Donkey Kong. And those are decades old. Sorry... --haha169 (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Metal Gear Solid

Hey there - I took a glance at the article and I see some good progress has been made since it lost FA status. At the minimum, I would recommend the following before bringing it to FAC:

• Create a "Legacy" heading and segregate prose from the Reception section that doesn't have to do with reviews. The legacy of the game still needs to be fleshed out, and I think you'll need to research some other sources such as magazines and books. An hour with a librarian will work wonders.
• Work on sections such as "Novelization" and "Other media" that are scant and unsourced.
• Get an experienced copy-editor who is not a video game editor to go through the text for jargon and so forth. --Laser brain (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answering on behalf of Laser brain...I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 13:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Oakland head coaches

Hello, I can't comment much on that list, it looks good to me, but I'd suggest you ask Gonzo, he's more of an expert in these lists than I am. --Crzycheetah 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature (Dance Group)‎

Hi, I changed the speedy deletion tag on this because it doesn't fit the criteria of no context. I replaced it with A7 - non notable bio. Kevin (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Oakland Raiders head coaches

I made some changes to the list here. This includes splitting up the footnotes and references sections, changing the first sentence, combining the 1st and 2nd paragraphs, combining the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, and other small changes. I did not address any prose issues, if you do bring it to WP:FLC, let me know and I will give it a more thorough review. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't need to be italicized. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

Great stuff! Incidentally, this page is getting very long. Do you know how to archive old threads? If not, I'm happy to help. There's a choice of manual or automatic... --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've restored the references you removed. In this type of article it's important to know where each claim is referenced, in particular statistics and quotations. Yet again no-one else at the FAC raised this as an issue and your single-minded edits are not in line with the community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I just wrote - each claim needs to be referenced. Each quote needs to be referenced. Anyway, since, once again, you're the only person in the community that thinks it needed to be done, it's obvious you're on your own. So the reversion was a good one. Oh, and please try to use edit summaries so fellow editors can see what you've done and why you've done it in future. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And to quote Wikipedia:When to cite "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment. The source of the material should always be clear. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken." - so no policy states that the current referncing isn't appropriate. Just for your information. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So, for your information once more, I have reinserted the references once again. There is absolutely nothing wrong the references being used this way - refresh your understanding of this by reading the guideline I've posted above. And please do not remove the references against consensus again. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, precisely. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Buc, User:Dweller and I (amongst others) have done our best to accommodate your requests but, ultimately, you're the only person who has made such extensive requests to over-simplify the article. Your comments have been there for all to see for some time, including mine and Dweller's replies but nobody has shown any level of agreement with your concerns. Four editors have offered support after providing really in-depth comments which have been addressed. Please remember this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, featured content here is supposed to contain 'engaging, perhaps brilliant prose'. The simplifications you've been asking for detracts from this principle. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Buc, it's not our responsibility to do your running around for you. If you think you need more people to back up your comments then you should actively seek to find them. The FAC is a public forum for discussion and debate over the quality of the article. People who are interested have contributed there, and already there are four supports. This would indicate that at least four people who have reviewed the article disagree with your assessment as they think the article is of featured quality already without having to make the adjustments you've suggested. In that sense the community has, thus far, not agreed with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you Bole2?

Bole2's user and talk pages are redirecting to your pages.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bole2 tried to take over the Buc account, but was rejected: Request to change username Bole2 → BUC.

Bole2, you should stop your redirect to this talk page. Use your own.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

3D Monster Maze

Just a query about your comment on Talk:3D Monster Maze: "Remove even after a large amount of talk about the lack of refs, nothing appears to have been done to address 1c." I was wondering if you have actuqlly read the article or the history? I have added quite a few citations and cleaned up some POV. I'm usure what you mean and it has just been removed as FA even though there has been very little commentary after the update. --Frodet (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks at FLRC

Hello Buc, I nominated the List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks at WP:FLRC. I believe some changes are needed in order to keep this list featured. Please, respond here. Thank you.--Crzycheetah 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

TFA/R query

Hi, Buc; just a query about where we're crossing paths. Perhaps your browser displays things differently than mine, or there's something wrong in the way I'm set up, but even though I continually shorten the listings at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending so that the template doesn't extend into the TOC, I see you keep lengthening them.[8] Is there something I need to know about browser setup? If not, would you mind keeping the entries there as short and brief as possible? It's only intended to be used as a reminder, placeholder template, so we don't need full descriptions that make it take over and interfere with other items on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man (disambiguation)

Please see MOS:DAB to understand why your edits are not appropriate for a disambiguation page. In a nutshell, a disambiguation page is meant as a navigation tool to help readers find a page in question and should only include links to pages that require disambiguation. Fictional history of Spider-Man may be of interest to those looking for "Spider-Man", but it is not likely to be what they are seeking if they typed in "Spider-Man". Therefore, it does not belong on the disambiguation page. Also, while the addition of his personal name is accurate, it is not in keeping with the MOS notion that "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.", therefore it is also extraneous and "unhelpful".

Understand that, at their heart, disambiguation pages are *not* content, but navigation tools. So information that would be useful in an article is unnecessary on a dismbiguation page. Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Denver Broncos seasons

Yeah I will take a look at it tonight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Buc, you went a noticeboard that is barely used, and you asked a very vague question not even explaining my reasoning on why it is POV, and you got one reply from (no offense) a user who has about 200 edits, and you claim that the noticeboard agrees with you?? Come on Buc, seriously? And yes I have feedback, get rid of the only's. Pretty simple huh? Buc why are you so ready to not believe me, yet so easily believe some random user on a rarely used noticeboard? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Broncos

Buc, you've got until tomorrow to sort out the remaining comments on the Broncos seasons list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Better to make it right. Chase those reviewers. I'd fail an FLC if it wasn't being worked on - if you work on the Broncos list then no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buc, just a quick note to let you know I archived the FLC. There were several opposers and quite a few outstanding comments. Feel free to get in touch with reviewers, update the list and bring it back to FLC in due course. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo Fan has convinced me that the remaining items can be easily fixed, so I've restored the nomination. Get cracking and turn those opposes into supports. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your post to Gonzo. Would you rather I withdrew the FLC then? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well no worries. I'm away until Sunday afternoon so you've got at least until then... good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deadline extended to tomorrow morning. I see you've done a lot of work, well done and good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Shearer

Hi, thanks for your message. I would like to get the Shearer article to FA, I've been taking a closer look at the criteria, it was a lot of work taking it from B-class to GA, so I'm trying to get a feel for just how much further there is to go. Ah yes, I used My Illustrated Career a lot during the GA push, I've had it for a while and it certainly came in useful for the early career stuff and the details which wouldn't be covered by news articles etc, and it's cited quite a few times now. Having a look at your page, you seem to be pretty experienced with the FA process, so your help writing, assessing problems etc. would most certainly be welcome. I pretty much re-wrote the article over the past few weeks, and I know that the prose is probably the area which needs a lot of work (it's certainly not "brilliant"), any other ideas on where improvement is needed? Obviously we need pics for an FA, so hopefully some enquiries will come up good. - Toon⁰⁵ 15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What the...?

Can you explain this? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm listening as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Bang2 0001.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Bang2 0001.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Bang2 0001.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Buc (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bang2 0001.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Bang2 0001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Buc (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving your account

Bole2, you can't "move" your account like that. You'd been advised by a bureaucrat that the choice of User:BUC was too close to the already exisiting User:Buc name. I've moved these user pages back to where they should be. In future, if you wish to change your username, please follow the proper procedure at WP:CHU. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you've been here long enough to understand that you should archive your talk page, it's far too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals (2nd nomination)

I have re-nominated this article for deletion. Please provide your input to the discussion. --Elliskev 17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Denver Broncos FLC

Sure thing, renominate whenever you think it's up to scratch. Oh, and archive this dang talk page!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Since Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page is going to be linked in an upcoming Dispatch, I was hoping to trouble you to update the page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Broncos

Buc, the FLC has been closed out by the bot so you'll need to re-initiate a new one which, of course, you are welcome to do whenever you think you've finished dealing with the reviewers' comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games

Hi, a discussion has been started related to the Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games FAC you commented on. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. The discussion is at WT:FAC#Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LeedsUnitedB.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:LeedsUnitedB.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Trippin'

Hey Buc, thanks. I'm leaving early-ish tomorrow... if you have something I can help with before then, go for it. Otherwise, sorry, I'll be back late March 2009! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Lewis-hamilton-2008-helmet.jpg.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Lewis-hamilton-2008-helmet.jpg.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Lewis-hamilton-2008-helmet.jpg.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bartgirlfriend.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bartgirlfriend.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halo02.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Bart Simpson/archive2

I apologize for not responding to your comments. Somehow, the page didn't end up on my watchlist, so I didn't even remember it existed until it was archived at Talk:Bart Simpson. I will reply here.

Comments With just a quick scan I can see a real lack of info. Just examples:

• Nothing about his character development
  • Any suggestions? There IS info about his development, there just isn't a section. This is because I found that the section I had put together was rather weak and most of the stuff fit into other sections, so I removed it. We can only add what the sources allow us, and there isn't much about development out there.
• No mention of him being a fan of Radioactive Man
  • Yeah, that's not really that major.
• Don't quite understand the Role in The Simpsons section, it seems more to be about his age, why is so short? why is it the lead section?
  • It's following the standard set by the other Simpson family members. I have been meaning to expand it, but I haven't gotten around to it.
• "Reception and cultural influence" section should be split. It's not clear what's Reception and what's cultural influence.
  • Yes, that's why they weren't split, because it's a grey area. For example, the "Bartmania" section could EASILY go under either section. I figured it would make the article more organized to just combine the two.
• "Bart is sometimes willing to go through a series of humiliations if it means pleasing his mom." example?
• "While Bart has often hurt Lisa" example?
  • In both cases, the citations provide specific episode examples.
• Has this article has a copy edit.If not get someone to do one before you even consider making it a FAC.

BUC (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)\

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Arizona Cardinals head coaches

Can you fix up this article and nominate it for Featured list nomination, since I am trying to get a featured topic related to this article. Thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 08:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arizona Cardinals head coaches, if you are interested. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Leslie Kelley

A tag has been placed on Leslie Kelley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series

I think it's ready for GAN. Good job with all of the changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article and placed it on hold at the GA nomination page pending the addressing of some minor concerns. You can see my comments at the review page. Thanks, Resolute 00:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to say that I have passed this article. Congratulations! Resolute 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest challenge you will face will be over the technical quality of the writing. FAC reviewers love to nitpick the minor points, and I am not the best at dealing with that ahead of time yet. Many of the things I often get hit with at FAC I tried to cover in my GA review - noun-plusing, citation styles, endashes, etc - so that should help you avoid some difficulty there. In my personal view, the article is pretty much complete, and you have already had a peer review, so FAC is a decent first step. I might suggest asking a couple of other baseball project members to take a good look through, just for the extra set of eyes before nomination. Good luck! Resolute 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:TFAR

You probably want to fill in your request, i.e. explain the points (1 for date relevance, 1 for promotion over a year ago, 1 for first time for you on main page?), put in the blurb (copy format from others on the page). Smallbones (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about NFL season list names

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Season list article titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series

Hi BUC. I didn't check the changes one by one, but it looks good overall. Best of luck at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so, but I've never nominated a sports article or followed one through the FAC process. Finetooth (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Buc, I've put it top on my to-do list. I'm away for the weekend but I'll get onto it as soon as I can. Best regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987 Pittsburgh Gladiators season

You messed up the deletion discussion. It doesn't say why you want the article to be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Nhl-1.jpg

File:Nhl-1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SakicWarmup2'.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SakicWarmup2'.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Th milnerleeds.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Th milnerleeds.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Monaco Grand Prix/archive1

Hi. I responded to your concerns. Apterygial 01:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please come back and strike or answer? Apterygial 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Mariano Rivera

Hey, I'm going through a 2nd FAC nomination for the article Mariano Rivera because it seems that most of the items from the first nomination have been fixed. I wanted to make sure the items you brought to my attention were adequately addressed. If you could review the issues you pointed out in the first FAC nomination, confirm I fixed them, and comment on the second FAC nomination, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

2004 World Series

Sorry for not responding sooner, I have been out of town. I will give it a look tomorrow. Indrian (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, back with some feedback. The article is looking solid and the prose and flow are both generally fine. In terms of comprehensivness, I feel there are a few things that could be addressed.

First, the lead section is generally okay, but I would emphasize some of the more historic aspects of the series more such as the whole Curse of the Bambino thing and the long World Series drought for Boston. I know that stuff is in there, but it could stand out more.

Second, I like how the article provides a brief overview of the season for both teams. You obviously do not want this to get too big, but the Red Sox section should probably discuss the Nomar Garciaparra trade, which has been considered a key moment in the Red Sox pennant drive.

Third, I don't think the term "continuity" makes for a good subject header. "Aftermath" would work, but I do not like it much better. It should be a term that ties into the subject of the section more and does not feel too generic.

Finally, in addition to the ratings thing you already mentioned, there should also be some discussion of individual and team statistical performances as part of summarizing the series as a whole. In general, this is where the article is weakest at the moment, as more information is needed to put the series in perspective. It is coming along well, however. If there is anything else I can do or if you want more feedback or clarification, don't hesitate to ask. Sorry again that it took so long to get back to you. Indrian (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The TV ratings information is the kind that I wanted to see, and the references are all from reliable sources. Still needs some copy-editing polish, however. In the first sentence, "watch" should be "watched", and I see "higest" and "raiting" later in the proposed section. The one thing I would like to see added is an introductory sentence at the beginning on what network televised the Series in the US and who the announcers were; 2009 Orange Bowl has a good example of this. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Two more suggestions: find a citation for the announcers, and change "as well pre-game build up" to "and pre-game build up." Giants2008 (17-14) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for not keeping up on this; I have been quite busy lately. I will have another look tomorrow and formulate some thoughts. Indrian (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Images review request

Hi Bucs. I took a look at the files in 2004 World Series and as far as I can see, there are no significant problems. Most of the images have free licenses and are uploaded to commons. Two problems (fairly insignificant) can be found in this file: File:MLBWS2004.png. The image may be too large of a non-free image to comply with the WP:NFC. Images like such should, in general, be as small as possible. Also, I find the source of the image to be non-specific - "sportslogos.net". A specific link would be a better source. Other than that, there really are no other problems. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions or comments. Good luck with the FAC. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's alright. I have re-sized the image to comply with WP:NFC. The source looks good and I can't find any other issues. You should be good to go now! Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings seasons/archive1

Care to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rivera

I know you posted Mariano Rivera at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. There is an open slot and there is a lot of discussion about scheduling issues of multiple sports articles. However, Jacques Plante is going on the main page for Nov 1, which takes points away. Your call on what to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award/archive1

Hey Bucs! You say on your main page you'll give any article a look, mind jumping in on this FLC? The thing is heavily reviewed now and has been sitting for a while, I really want to get the sucker closed on the Tuesday FLC bot-run. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll get on that PR right after lunch! For now, I've replied to your comments at the FLC, thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Replied, sorry I haven't hit your PR yet. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm gonna do your PR right now. That sure was a long lunch for me. ;p Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bucs, can you revisit to make sure that your comments have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and promote this FLC. If you still have more comments, please bring them up on the article's talk page. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Th milnerleeds.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Th milnerleeds.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Th 2pts.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Th 2pts.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

Since you participated in the third AFD, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Movie Game (UK TV series)

Hi there! Do you have a source for the claim that this show was created by Jacques Antoine? --Q4 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Twilight princess

May you help me get the artical to FAC. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD on The Legend of Zelda (Wii)?

You did not leave any rationale for this AfD. Can you please explain why you AfD'd it and why it should be deleted Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 World Series

Heyo! Given the work you did on the FAC for 2004 World Series I'd love if you could stop by the FAC for the 2009 World Series! Thanks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The logo's already been mentioned at the FAC. Plus an image reviewer's already said it's ok. Thanks for the notes. As for the quickness of it, ultimate all that's missing is a paragraph or two about them getting their rings and how they do the next season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charlie McDonnell

A tag has been placed on Charlie McDonnell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AriTotle (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:LondonBucsPatsbuildup.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:LondonBucsPatsbuildup.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of L.T

A tag has been placed on L.T requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bluemask (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2

As a reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tim Duncan, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

2004 World Series

The edits have been done to help compress the citations, as there are many that are same, but come from different sources. Dan Shaughnessy talked about the World Series in Reversing the Curse. I use that source as the main reason for the edits. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 12:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article 2004 World Series is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 27, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 27, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2004 World Series Trophy

The 2004 World Series was the Major League Baseball championship series for the 2004 season. It was the 100th World Series and featured the American League champion Boston Red Sox, against the National League champion St. Louis Cardinals. The Red Sox defeated the Cardinals four games to none in the best-of-seven series, played at Fenway Park and Busch Memorial Stadium. The series was played between October 23 and October 27, 2004, broadcast on Fox, and watched by an average of just under 25 and a half million viewers. The Cardinals earned their berth into the playoffs by winning the National League Central, and had the best win–loss record in the National League. The Red Sox won the American League wild card to earn their berth. The Cardinals reached the World Series by defeating the Los Angeles Dodgers in the best-of-five National League Division Series, and the Houston Astros in the best-of-seven Championship Series. The Red Sox defeated the Anaheim Angels in the American League Division Series and the New York Yankees in the Championship Series to advance to their first World Series since 1986. The Cardinals made their first trip to the World Series since 1987. The Red Sox swept the series, winning their first championship since 1918, which supposedly ended the "Curse of the Bambino", a curse that was supposed to have been inflicted on the team when Babe Ruth was sold to the Yankees in 1919. (more...)

I have seen the article on the main page, as you requested. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry

I left you a message at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/England_v_Germany_(2000) and forgot to mention it. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 World Series

Thanks for the review! I think I dealt with the issues you left, I responded to one or two that I didn't change immediately. Great to have a review by a past World Series FA author! Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hiya, I think I've dealt with all your comments. Sorry to harass like this, but you're the only outstanding commenter, currently. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • <3 <3 Thanks for that, been a long time since I got a FA promoted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2004 World Series

When you saw my edits about Tony La Russa on the 2004 World Series page, what were your first thoughts? I had to add them, as they were not mentioned, about managing teams in both leagues to pennants and trying to manage teams in both leagues to World Series championships. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2004 World Series

See Talk:2004 World Series#First since 1979?. Being the second time my edit has been reverted, I think it is time to discuss the issue. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{01:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)}

Future project

I'm game for either, really. The All-Star Game would probably be simpler (speaking from my work on single-game tie-breaker articles), but the 01 World Series sure was magnificent. I'm at home so I'll grab my copy of Nine Innings from Ground Zero in case we do decide to do the 01 World Series. User:Courcelles also voiced some interest in this after your message, FYI. I guess maybe I'd say start with the simpler All-Star Game, but either way. Just lemme know if you make a decision and we can start work! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, either would be fun. Courcelles 01:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

York meetup

Hi Bucs. Just to let you know there is a meetup being planned on Tuesday. See this page on Metawiki for details and to signup. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Zelda TFAR request

Hi Bucs, I noticed that you had nominated three Zelda-related articles for Today's Featured Article on November 18. I thought I should let you know that as Call of Duty 4 is appearing on the Main Page on November 5, the Zelda articles lose three points each - so the scores (which were originally 1, 3 and 3) are now -2, 0 and 0 respectively. Given this, you might want to reconsider selecting that date. Prioryman (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC

The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wet Nuts

Was wondering if you're getting your nuts wet, as you aren't editing much anymure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.76.120 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

File:CWDarkal.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CWDarkal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Leeds meetup

Hello! I don't know if you're aware but there is a wikimedia meet up in Leeds this Saturday (14 June) if you're interested. Hopefully you can make it. Regards IJA (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Bucs! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article review

Not sure if you'll see this, but I've put Only Fools and Horses up for review of its featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Only Fools and Horses/archive1. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Skip Clueless listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Skip Clueless. Since you had some involvement with the Skip Clueless redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix | Talk  00:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Skip Clueless

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

White Sux listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect White Sux. Since you had some involvement with the White Sux redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Bucs/James Milner

User:Bucs/James Milner, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bucs/James Milner and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bucs/James Milner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Milner.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Milner.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Foxi.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Foxi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination of Bang Cartoon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bang Cartoon, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Cartoon (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Fhqwgads" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fhqwgads. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22#Fhqwgads until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Fhqwgads" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fhqwgads has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Fhqwgads until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)