Jump to content

User talk:NapHit/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 9

LFC

Yes I'd be happy to help out, I'll get started in a few days if thats ok? Tom (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

WPF1 Newsletter (August)

Cs-wolves(talk) 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Supporters GA..

.. is there more you would like changed/added? Sandman888 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) ... Sorry forgot about alt. Let me know what you think. Sandman888 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Alt text is NOT a GA criterion. Please try reading WP:WIAGA before making up new hurdles. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Hi, to be honest, i'm glad the Liverpool F.C. article didn't get to FA because I went to the trouble of reviewing the article and you did not even acknowledge one suggestion or even give a couple of suggestions for the Phil Taylor peer review. Thanks alot. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

--Midgrid(talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

WPF1 Newsletter (October)

Cs-wolves(talk) 17:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

The Signpost: 8 November 2010


Your GA nomination of Liverpool F.C. in Europe

The article Liverpool F.C. in Europe you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Liverpool F.C. in Europe for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have not edited in the last six weeks or so. The points raised in the GA review need addressing by 22 November. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

--Midgrid(talk) 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

WPF1 Newsletter (December)

Cs-wolves(talk) 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

WPF1 Newsletter (January)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Formula One at 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

WPF1 Newsletter (February)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 03:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Hi NapHit, I have to say that the list you made is a good candidate to become a featured list, as it is notable, has a nice introduction, is clear and everything. If I'd had the time, I would assist to make it featured, as I did on the tour winner list, but unfortunately I am much too busy in real life now. Please understand that my oppose on that review is not a 'this list is hopeless'-oppose, but a 'this list misses something crucial in its current state, but it is possible to fix this'. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

LFC in Europe

OK, thanks for that. Might there be somewhere else it could go, eg in a seperate article to itself? WilliamF1two (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help WilliamF1two (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:1977 European Cup final logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1977 European Cup final logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (March)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Apologies for the late delivery of this month's newsletter; the automated delivery system appears not to be working at present.--Midgrid(talk) 20:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

WPF1 Newsletter (April)

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Reaction on vuelta/giro list reviews

I want to say something about the way you come across on the featured list reviews... In both the giro and vuelta lists, you had unsourced teams, or dashes indicating there were no teams. When I challenged those teams, on the basis of sources that fail the WP:RS criteria, you simply reply that my sources are not good enough, and that the original information had to stay. This gives me the feeling that you think your original table is correct, unless reviewers can prove that it is wrong... Excuse me if I am wrong, but this is the way you come across, at least to me. I think that my sourced information that the 1946 Vuelta was run in teams, is better than your unsourced claim that it was not. The 1946 Vuelta España article has a reliable source that shows that at least there was a Dutch team, so it is not unreasonable to suggest there were other teams, too. But it's not about that detail. I am concerned about the way you handle the negative replies. You could have said:

"Thanks for the information that of the remaining Vueltas, only the 1946 was possibly run in teams. Unfortunately, the source is not RS, so I can not directly add it to the article, but I'll see if it can help me to find new information."

What you did now, gave me the same feeling as if you'd have said:

"Your source is useless. I'll stick to the information that is now in the article, even though it has no source."

It makes it look as if you're not interested at all in promoting the list with correct information, but your primary goal is to promote the list with the information you added.

I have good faith in editors in general, so I assume you really want to do what's best, and you don't realize that other people may perceive your actions differently.

I hope you'll value this message. It is not meant to make you angry, not to make you look bad on other editors, and not to make you sad. The only goal is to make you aware of the way your actions come across. If you remove this message, I won't put it back.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

I've reviewed the article for GAN and there are a few issues to sort out. The review is here and I've placed it on hold for a week, although I can extend if necessary. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Passed now, well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 9