Jump to content

User talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit history for this page can be found here.

DYK for Peter Ronald

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Dyer

[edit]

Hi, thanks for helping out on the article. Would you mind confirming which book you used to cite the sentence "He made one further appearance in the...", as the Sporting Heroes ref doesn't back up the statement. Also, could you add the page numbers for the books? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Stepanov

[edit]

Thanks for the notification (and no, I was not aware of that discussion; I just happened to hit this particular page during my normal maintenance/assessment rounds), but judging from the thread you linked to, no one pointed out that using the "Andrei" spelling in the disambig page title is contrary to bullet 9 of the WP:RUS#People guideline. Note, however, that the clause does not apply to the individual entries, which should be reviewed individually according to the rest of criteria outlined in WP:RUS#People. Indeed, I found no reason to move elsewhere any of the two entries listed on that page. Hope this helps. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 21:23 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. The main reason is to achieve consistency within the broader scope, not to mention the fact that the article about the actual name is located at Andrey (per the same guideline). Plus, there are redirects in place which address the concern about the approach being counterintuitive.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 21:34 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no objections to that edit. We normally don't do that (some names have dozens, even hundreds of transliteration variants; that's why we have a guideline to standardize on just one), but in this particular case I think the exception is warranted. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2010; 13:30 (UTC)

COI

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think someone's got the wrong end of the stick here :) BigDom 10:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet incident?

[edit]

Sorry, I'm confused. What was the sockpuppet incident? Thought I'd be better of asking here rather than clogging up the AfD any more :) Cheers, BigDom 10:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense now. That Rhys Taylor nomination was a strange one. I considered before opening the AfD whether or not he passed the GNG, and in my opinion he didn't and still doesn't. However, other people thought differently and the article was kept. People interpret guidelines differently and that's always going to happen. I hope that Gavin Massey is deleted, if only to prove a point that ATHLETE and the new NSPORTS guideline (even though I supported it, although certainly not for its criteria relating to footballers) are seriously flawed. For sure, the importance placed on the NSPORTS guideline needs to be seriously reconsidered. Cheers, BigDom 11:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Football squad player

[edit]

Hi, I have directly inserted the markup in {{fs start}} and {{fs mid}} with varying widths into the sandbox to show the different displays. I believe blank widths for Nationality and Player is the best way to go.

!width=1%|No.

!width=|Nationality
!width=1%|Position

!width=|Player

I am on sporadic access, so feel free to make whatever changes you prefer (my key concern is just to get the template compliant with MOSFLAG) and proceed with letting the admin implement it in the templates. Jappalang (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maurice Cook

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nigel Gibbs

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waving the white flag, the dove of peace, and anything else that signifies truce and friendship

[edit]

I just wanted to send you a quick note to apologize if my remarks are coming across as terse or accusatory or overly argumentative. I'm not intending to make you a scapegoat - really, I'm not! - and I absolutely know that you do a lot of good work here and have the intent of making this project better. I just feel very strongly about the importance of the footy pages here, having worked on so many of them for so long, and like you I want them to be as good as they can possibly be. We clearly disagree strongly on this particular issue, but I know that our mutual aims are the same. You seem like a really nice bloke, intelligent too, so I just want you to know that anything I say in these discussions going forward is nothing personal against you at all, and I hope we can come up with a workable solution that is acceptable to everyone. Cheers, and keep up the good work. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that I missed out the word "releasing" from my header here, and as such it seems as though I am now "waving a dove of peace". I just want to make it clear that I in no way condone waving doves around. Hehe :D --JonBroxton (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute disgust

[edit]

Re [1]:

If you are absolutely disgusted with my comments, I'd rather you discussed it with me first rather than venting obliquely to a general audience. I wouldn't characterise that sort of behaviour as "appalling" as you did mine, but it's not particularly collegiate.

As it is, articles can and will fail FAC because of MOS non-compliance; I was not the editor who noticed this in this case, remember, and other reviewers may spot this in the future. It would be a shame for article which are otherwise of the requisite quality get rejected for such a daft reason, and that's why I'd like to make sure it doesn't fail for this. If you actually check my contributions, you'll see that I've suggested to Thumperward that he try develop a suitable table for the Manchester United article to satisfy the MOS and the FA reviewers, and give us a prototype to start from in developing a general MOS-compliant fix. Knepflerle (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the method, and will attempt to do so in the future. All I can say is that I read that comment and saw red, as it threatens to undermine the progress of recent days.
You are correct that you are not the only person to raise the issue. However, your approach is in marked contrast with that of User:Jappalang. He spotted the issue, made the explicit point that it had nothing to do with the nominator (indeed, WP:FOOTY ensures that all of its articles use this template, so I would go far as saying that the nominator had no choice in the matter). He then proceeded to propose a solution, engage in discussion and collabouration, and then seek a wider discussion on the matter when it was met with opposition. I apologise if this is a misrepresentation of your position, but from what I read in that post, your stance was that until the discussion had ended in the precise way that you (and I) want, you would block all football articles from the FAC process. While I will not seek to justify the way I expressed my opinion, I do consider it to be proportionate to the way you expressed yours.
As mentioned above, work is underway to amend to template. More importantly, work is still underway to try to sell the concept to the wider WP:FOOTY community, without whom this change is never going to happen. There is an RfC open on the matter, and the process of building consensus must come above all else. Editors who disagree with the change have raised the legitimate point that the MoS does not need to be followed for its own sake, and our first objective of the RfC is to explain why the change is necessary, rather than pedantic. I think things are going quite well in that regard, but your comment threatens to undermine that.
In the extremely unlikely event that we fail to make the case, and a clear consensus is reached that ignoring the MoS is justified, that consensus would be valid. I repeat though, that is extremely unlikely. A more likely scenario is that a decent case is made, but reasonable arguments against result in no consensus, making the comment at that stage might have been a reasonable escalation of the situation. By making it with your opening remark before discussion has reached a natural conclusion, you have portrayed yourself as someone with an agenda who is unwilling to compromise. Indeed, if your intention is to block football FACs in that eventuality, I believe you have undermined your own cause by going in so gung-ho.
With regards to my approach, I did it for impact. Impact is not always the wrong approach, provided it is done with extreme caution. On reflection, my decision to make that comment before engaging with you does not meet the "extreme caution" threshold, and for that I apologise profusely. My belief was that categorically distancing myself from that was a good way of mitigating the potential damage.
I hope that we can work together, given that we share the common long-term aim of improving this template. For what it's worth I would be more than happy to retract and apologise for my remark at the FAC, if you would be willing to do likewise on your perceived threat to block all football articles from FAC (or at least, state that you will not do so while the process of discussion, consensus building and development is underway). I will respect your position if you do not wish to do so. However, I believe that demonstrating the willingness to compromise is the only hope we have of getting improvement of any kind through, and therefore that retractions on both of our parts is in our mutual interest.
Peace, --WFC-- 02:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "threat" to retract. Please read my comment again, more carefully this time. I said that football articles would be blocked from FA status. Passive voice, no subject to the sentence specified; I did not say who would be doing the blocking. I was stating that the articles may fail FAC, which the people who make these decisions might well do. Even if I planned to kick up a fuss at FAC about this issue (and I don't; I don't participate at FAC, and as far as I am aware of the process I wouldn't have the ability to "block" an article from promotion single-handedly, anyway), you are still missing the point slightly that any other reviewer could pick up on this in the future - it is a valid bone of contention. It doesn't matter whether it's part of MOS or not; a reviewer could object that the information in the table was not reasonably accessible to many readers. Threatening to walk out of the project if someone were to object on these fairly reasonable grounds as you did in your comment, is not a particularly constructive way of dealing with a reviewer's concerns.
"you have portrayed yourself as someone with an agenda who is unwilling to compromise." - herein lies the second problem. It's overstated to the point of cliché, but this "portrayal" has stemmed from your failure to assume good faith to my comments. If you had looked further at my contributions in this matter and others, I don't think this would support your rather damning conclusion - I'm open to discussion.
Please remember for the future that this resulted from your misreading a slightly ambiguous (but not incorrect) comment, misattributing a lot of bad faith and intentions to it and then storming in all guns blazing - please consider counting to ten next time, and asking the other editor to clarify. I do however much appreciate and accept your apology, and I'd appreciate it if you redact your comment at the bottom of the FAC; feel free to remove my subsequent reply at the same time. I will further clarify my earlier remark in the discussion now.
Best, Knepflerle (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a lot clearer; please get in touch if there is anything further you would like me to clarify there. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Apologies for the way I approached this. Regards, --WFC-- 12:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

DYK for List of Watford F.C. seasons

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Len Dunderdale

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries

[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you've been doing on this list. I've been incredibly busy in the offline world recently so I've not been contributing as much as I'd like. This is likely to remain the case for a good few weeks, so while I'll do what I can, that might not amount to much. There is just one minor change you've made that I'm not so sure about; removing the bolding of the current champions. I always feel that bolding is a simpler, more accessible way of highlighting than colour (the Lynx test). Oldelpaso (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't visit FLC regularly enough to keep on top of MOS-related trends, so I'm happy to defer to the FLC crowd. Having just tried out the very similar Links, it appears that text browsers display bold and italics in the same manner. I may have been mistaken; some of them can handle background colours after all, the yellow renders quite nicely on Links. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kent

[edit]

Hello. Should you ever find yourself wanting to add to Harry Kent's page, I draw your attention to the paragraph just added to Jack Hall (footballer born 1883) concerning their transfer to Middlesbrough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good result

[edit]

Maybe the deletion of Gavin Massey will finally change WikiProject Football's insistence that a footballer who plays one minute of professional football deserves an article. A small, but perhaps influential, victory for us editors who think that footballers should be held to similar standards to other biographies. BigDom 10:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that user page with the old AfDs on this morning before I left you a message here. Anyway, keep up the good work and you know that I mostly agree with you regarding footballer notability and will be watching out for any more similar AfDs in the future. Cheers, BigDom 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle Sounders FC players

[edit]

Hey man, can you please tell me why we have a bunch of junk that we don't need on the List of Seattle Sounders FC players? I looked at the other pages and there's none of that. I need to change it back to the way it was in the beginning. – Michael (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was developed based on some of the better English lists (notably Arsenal). It then evolved through discussion at WT:SOUNDERS, and scrutiny here. Is there anything in particular that you think is "junk"? Some of the things in there were to compensate for the fact that the Sounders are such a new team, and therefore that it was possible to go into more I'm open to changing it (you may be right on certain points), but it's very unlikely that community consensus will accept the list being completely reverted. It might be better to continue this discussion at either WT:SOUNDERS or WT:FOOTY, to get some external opinions on the matter. Regards, --WFC-- 07:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Jo

[edit]

Apologies for reverting your edit, this was an unintended error. In relation to you other remarks I would guide you in the direction of WP:BLP. Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains/contained flaws at a very basic level, including games/goals etc. In these sorts of WP:BLP cases it is incumbent on those looking to (re)add the material to provide sources. I am puzzled by your suggestion that I harbour "strong feelings" towards the subject. Given that my only strong feelings are concerned with producing balanced and accurate articles, I hope that you will retract this statement.
As it happens I have some sympathy with your views, although they are against policy. I often wish that my band of dedicated followers would explain their opinions when deleting my improvements! Thanks, 90.207.105.117 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top division clubs list

[edit]

Hello. If it'd help, I don't mind having a go at adding the authors/dates to the RSSSF refs. I know it's tedious, but at the moment the sources for what I'm currently working on are inaccessible, so something mindless that can be picked up and put down wouldn't come amiss. Don't want to interfere if someone's already working on it, though. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do then. Talking of mindless tasks, you could always spend a couple of days taking digital photos of all your Watford book pages... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Didn't take long, actually. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

[edit]

WFC seasons

[edit]

Hey WFC, how's life? Hope you have a positive result against the budgies tomorrow night and we can all start the season in the right frame of mind! In any case, I'm "auditing" the FLCs and saw your list there. At the moment, it feels like I do one of two things for every FLC, either (1) review a list which is desperate for attention or (2) review a list which is well-supported but I haven't seen yet. Your nom is comment-heavy but I would hate for it to stagnate, so I'm just here to say, as and when you're ready, ping me and I'll do my best to review the list as soon as I can. It doesn't mean anything if I've gone over your nomination but generally, I'm here for sanity checks, and unfortunately, I'm a bit football-oriented, so I'll be interested. I note you have a sorting issue which could affect a few more FLs, so maybe we need to spend some more time working this one through. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll give it a major (independent) look tomorrow afternoon, and that's a promise. In the meantime, you need to ensure that Priskin scores at least one goal every eight games (which is, after all, why we paid 2 million or whatever for him), or else I'll summarily oppose everything by anyone related to Watford. Deal?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At my age, I keenly look back on the days of Chris and Jace who were a fantastic (and virtually cost-free) pairing. We had the two Darrens, Dazza and Benty subsequently but bankruptcy does disrupt potential success. Still, this season we've got Priskin, Fulop (not a bad signing, that one) and only Chopra to hope for.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, missed the chance to review, broke the promise, bugger. Sorry. Will get to you soon... good luck tonight. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subnational flags

[edit]

After reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) article, I agree with you that flags on the headers should be avoided. On the other hand, it also says that subnational flags is appropriate on sporting information and tables (the article contains both). Theresident (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the flags should be used. Remember: that article is about teams playing in 1st division football in their respective nations; the most they represent is the department, state, province, etc. that they are located at. For example, Boca Juniors pulls most of their fans (the ones that go to the stadium) from Buenos Aires (the city). Flamengo from Rio de Janeiro, Internacional from Rio Grande do Sul, etc. Theresident (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about team flags? Could we use them on the clubs (like in Italian wiki)? Theresident (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Dffgd's talk page. dffgd talk·edits 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Non-League football
Kenya national football team
Anthony Pilkington
Chester F.C. (2010)
List of Salernitana Calcio 1919 players
Comoros national football team
Brandon United F.C.
Go Ahead Eagles
Ron-Robert Zieler
Sunday league football
Robert Page (footballer)
Ljungskile SK
Kyrgyzstan national football team
Leith Athletic F.C.
Adam Bartlett
Bhutan national football team
Lalor Football Club
Tom Kennedy (footballer)
Joe Skarz
Cleanup
AFC Ajax
2010 FIFA World Cup statistics
Fabio Cannavaro
Merge
Linfield F.C.
List of European countries by population
Indonesia Football Yearly Progession
Add Sources
Ángel di María
Newcastle United F.C.
Korea DPR national football team
Wikify
Syrianska FC
Zamalek SC
Helsingborgs IF
Expand
I-League 2nd Division 2008
List of AC Bellinzona players
Welsh football league system

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

RFA Comment

[edit]

[2] In teresting. I'm afraid I'm going to disagee here. Let's spin my argument arround. If an RFA is at, say, 71% and everyone who opposed had said "weak oppose" xxx reason then consensus would likely be clear - i.e. the editor has commented that they have concerns but the impression is they are not that fussed if the candidate passes. So whilst I agree that the weigh tof the argument is important one cannot ignore if someone states that their support or oppose is weak or strong. Pedro :  Chat  06:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on like that

[edit]

and you'll have me in tears.... ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Callaghan

[edit]

I apologise for my comments about how Nigel Callaghan was not fondly remembered by fans of Aston Villa due to his performances for them, as you felt I may be indicating that they are not wishing him well in his current battle against cancer. I know that no true football fan could feel that way about a player whatever their status among fans of a particular club might be. Sir Stanley 21:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count

[edit]

You can use this tool, that is even more accurate than X!'s, because it shows you the 100 top edited pages per each namespace. Hope this helps. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutch

[edit]

I was present for all 45 competitive first-team minutes he's played for Birmingham so far, but that was 2 years ago when he was 16. I'd think of him as a central midfielder, and comfortable on the ball, but he's still a kid, he'll play where he's told to play. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries/archive2

[edit]

It sure looks like a case of WP:DUCK, but as you're more familiar with the editors' editing pattern than I, do you mind opening up an WP:SPI? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|Dabomb87|WFC}}
User and his IP now blocked. Thanks for hanging in there; it's quite frustrating, I know. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

DYK for Freddie Bunce

[edit]

Hello, your nomination of Freddie Bunce at DYK was reviewed and comments provided.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites' RfA

[edit]

I hope you don't mind my removal of the hash (I assumed that was your intention when you struck your neutral. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine. I haven't had the time to evaluate, but a lot of people had a problem with me being an explicit neutral, so I thought I'd better strike it. Seems a pretty good candidate, but I never support or oppose without being in a position to judge. --WFC-- 00:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see our friend has been busy again. Have watchlisted, a longer protection could be in order. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's longer term I'd rather it were pending changes- IPs could be very useful in the maintenance of such a diverse list. With pending changes he could knock himself out, no-one would ever see it, and with two clicks everything he tried to do over a long period of time could be undone. Even if he was smart about it, it would still be easy to undo everything he'd done in one edit, without anyone ever seeing what he wanted them to see. --WFC-- 20:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps. Pending changes can be a right pain when dealing with socks. Any seemingly benign edits will probably be accepted by reviewers, who might not be able to see the difference between sockpuppetry and legitimate edits (and this is always the problem with pending changes, see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squad template deletion discussions

[edit]

Hey, thanks for taking part earlier, now I found a few more that need to be voted on: thanks.--EchetusXe 18:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pilgrims?

[edit]

I don't know much about these guys (their logo is cool and I saw them in a video game) but dude has been working on this list. You have some history with featured lists so your feedback might be useful. I'm still leaning keep and plan on going through it more but I have a feeling you will be a little more critical which would be useful in getting it squared away (even if it means not featured now but later). Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year/archive2.

By the way, terrible first half of the season but my money is on a playoff run for the Sounders. A little different than England but hopefully entertaining. Cptnono (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop it on my watchlist, but I don't like explicitly !voting on Plymouth lists- mine and Argyle's similar names might open up allegations of votestacking. In addition, I wrote a list extremely similar to this, so I'm obviously going to be biased towards supporting. That said, I'm familiar with the minutiae of all of the previous discussions on all of these lists, so if I see anything that I've seen before, I'll provide links to previous discussions.
As a fan of one of the most successful teams in English play-offs, I hope you're right. Although the Champions League results surprised me. I thought it would be pretty even between the Sounders and a Mexican team, but a Sounders defeat and Monterry struggling to win at home throws the whole competition wide open. --WFC-- 06:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look please

[edit]

If your not too busy your view would be welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Use_of_flag_icons_in_concert_tours_or_festivals Gnevin (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Freddie Bunce

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See?

[edit]

That's how fast I am.

BTW, why are you telling me this?

"P.S., I look forward to promoting important lists to FL in future, such as List of top-division football clubs in AFC countries, List of top-division football clubs in CAF countries, List of top-division football clubs in OFC countries and List of top-division football clubs in non-FIFA countries. Regards, --WFC-- 02:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.93.60 (talk)

IP tracing

[edit]

Are you saying that the Wikimedia Foundation can trace an IP that's behind a proxy (at least I assume he is using a proxy)?--MicroX (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your page. --WFC-- 05:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for a 2nd opinion (if you have time)

[edit]

I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when trying to defend the use of File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg in the Sounders FC club article and the USOC final article. Given that you're familiar with the process both of these articles went through before reaching FA status, I wonder if you wouldn't mind providing a second opinion in the discussion. If you don't have time, I understand. Thanks either way. --SkotyWATC 07:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's a stronger case for the cup final article, but hope that it stays in both. I appreciate the sanity check. If you think of any reasons I've missed or not thought of yet, drop me a note on my talk page so I can make sure I provide the most complete justification argument that I can for their inclusion. --SkotyWATC 07:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the format

[edit]

Stop messing with the format, there is only a tiny percentage of people bothered about it, please leave it alone, sixty six point six percent minimum support to be accepted is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CONMEBOL TOC

[edit]

Sorry, I didn't reply sooner, but great work on that template. I like it and it should definitely improve any applicable article. Cheers! Digirami (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

Straw poll

[edit]

Do you really think it's a good idea to encourage a meta-discussion on the main poll page when there's an entirely identical discussion already in progress on the talk page? – Smyth\talk 12:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the poll has no legitimacy whatsoever due to the skewed initial voting system and the continued impression that this might be some sort of final decision (as evidenced by people voting 3 or 4 while openly expressing reservations about the way the thing currently works). After being added late, removed for 13 or so hours and having already been forked by the time it was restored, I agree that the section serves little ongoing benefit. But the fact of the matter is that the poll should already have been paused pending the outcome, rather than being allowed to continue. If it is to continue, everything that people have seen fit to post on that page should remain (within reason). Regards, --WFC-- 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least clean up after yourself by removing one of the duplicates, please. – Smyth\talk 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Your comment to me on Connormah's RFA was an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. I disagree with that reasoning and said as much, but it is not an attack on those who hold it. I also gave reasons for my support other than merely disagreeing with the rationale against. I'd appreciate if you'd not make comments like that again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PAFC Player of the Year review

[edit]

You know you want to. ;) I'm going to ask if a few people can take a look because its very quiet at the moment. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more not wanting to get bogged down in a controversial review at the moment than anything else. Given that I've written a very similar list, my support would carry virtually no weight given that there are questions about whether it's a content fork (although I can't see it failing on those grounds. If it does get closed due to inactivity—which is still a few weeks away yet—it will in all probability pass the second time. Regards, --WFC-- 06:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]

{{talkback|Dabomb87|May be worth half an eye}}

Nomination for merging of Template:SharedIP US military

[edit]

Template:SharedIP US military has been nominated for merging with Template:SharedIPGOV. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

RFA

[edit]

Thanks for your co-nomination in my RfA yesterday, it's much appreciated. Cheers, BigDom 11:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. --WFC-- 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least twice

[edit]

You rebel. BigDom 09:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's a small change. But from my previous excursions to NSPORT I have found that editors are staunch in their defence of the exact letter, ignoring the fact that (going by the RfC poll) a majority of people would like to see it strengthened, but some of those supported on the grounds that it was progress nonetheless. When it sticks, this will be (small) progress, while at the same time being entirely workable. --WFC-- 09:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's better than just the one appearance. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody changes it back pretty quickly, though any progress we can make towards a stronger sports guideline can only be a good thing. BigDom 09:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it to be reverted to be honest, but I think it'll stick. Outside of "there is consensus for this so who cares about BLP1E?" (which is debateable anyway), I don't see what grounds there are to revert. --WFC-- 10:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People don't need grounds to revert on here other than "I don't like change". BigDom 10:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to 'em ;) --WFC-- 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, WaitingForConnection. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports).
Message added 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World's largest eruptions/archive1

[edit]

Hi WFC, and thanks for reviewing the above FLC. The nomination has been restarted so that consensus can form more quickly. Please update your stance on the article and be sure to add/update any comments you may have. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a rather belated follow-up to the user name character rfc

[edit]

Your proposed mandatory work-around, which i did read, is what i was responding to. Requiring that of others is the secondary issue to just disallowing their initial account all together. Your user name itself can be seen as a statement of permanence. If you were to take this account to Arabic Wikitionary and they hypothetically have a policy such as you propose for English Wikipedia you could likely find yourself quickly blocked for an intentionally disruptive user name because of the inherent declaration of defiance to their policy. Your idea sounds sweet and cuddly on the surface but its application would quickly turn more strict and forceful. Forced bending to your whim creates tension that will eventually result in it coming back to hit you. It is basic physics and sociology.

I have read the entire user name policy archive, discussions on meta, and a few other projects where something led me to look. I read your comments. I really disagree with about all of your reasoning. But hey, you aren't the one who nit-picked my signature to tiny bits to the point where i was in tears because hugs so offended someone they had to publicly chastise me for a gesture of courtesy so our discussion is not so bad. By the time i though to check back in on that discussion it was closed.

I'm too tired to fix the poor grammar in this message. I should be sleeping now. Happy Thursday. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ and ~extra hugs~ 07:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hypocrite talking about tolerance, given that you've decided to seek out a user on their talk page to personally attack them for having an opinion that happens not to conform to your precise anal standards. If it's that important, have the fucking backbone to do so at the time. If you genuinely didn't see it, and it was of no consequence, just let the thing lie. Don't you dare come onto someone's talk page to attack them for expressing a civil opinion, especially not on a dead discussion. That was spineless, needless and absolutely vicious. Except in response to this post (which would be understandable but strongly inadvisable), don't EVER post on my talk page again. If I see you do this sort of thing to another user in future, I will report you for bullying. If you do it to me, I will report you for harrassment.
Have a nice weekend. --WFC-- 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am archiving this thread, (along with the rest of the page) to coincide with my semi-wikibreak. Feel free to restore it to the live talk page if you feel the need to respond, although I would prefer to just let irrelevant bury the inconsequential. --WFC-- 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

[edit]

and if you haven't time or inclination, that's absolutely not a problem. But in your opinion, would Jimmy Haarhoff, in its current state, meet the GNG? take care, Struway2 (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I'd say no. Although if all BLPs on people in a similar position were even a tenth of that standard, the community as a whole would probably have a very different view on where the notability bar should lie. --WFC-- 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(generically, that is) --WFC-- 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Struway2 (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks spam

[edit]

Hello WFCforLife, thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA! Don't worry that you didn't support it; your comments and advice were still appreciated.
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

Ayman Al-Hindi

[edit]

Hello. I wanted to let you know I declined the PROD for this article. He's a full international (I've added a reference and link which verify this) so I believe the article meets our notability standards. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marwaan Mabrouk

[edit]

Hello again. I also declined the PROD on this article for similar reasons. He's a full international who has played in the CAF Champions League and Confederation Cup, and the article should meet our notability standards. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did do a good-faith search which yielded nothing, but will try to check the usual channels to reduce the possibility of PRODDING internationals in future. Keep up the excellent work! Regards, --WFC-- 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside though, it does surprise me that someone would create an article on an international footballer, without mentioning that salient fact. Still, hands up, and I'll make sure I'm more thorough in the future. --WFC-- 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've done the same. Especially with players that have names that are transliterated into English from Arabic, it's really difficult to find them at the NFT or FIFA sites (e.g., Hindi was located at Hendi and Marwaan was located at Marwan). I agree that these were extremely poor articles (still are) and hopefully we can get some of these editors to do a better job of making good claims of notability (Mabrouk's article had the wrong club and no mention of his international play). I know you are doing a lot of great work (these PRODs help too, because otherwise no one would pay attention to these terrible articles) and I'm glad to cross your path. Jogurney (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Stanley

[edit]

It appears that User:Sir Stanley is wasting quite a bit of time with his contributions and I noted that you've reverted him at least once. Please let me know if this behaviour continues, as I don't think we should tolerate such an approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully only a dozen or so past or present Watford players (plus all our living managers) are enough in the limelight to attract his attention, but if I see it again I will do. In my opinion he is gaming the system, but short of an RfC, it's difficult to see what can really be done. I suspect that anyone who makes that block will find themselves embroiled in bureaucracy (a word that I know I really should avoid for a little while!). Thanks for the note though, good to know that I'm not the only person that thinks this! Regards, --WFC-- 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the patience I used to have three years ago. If he continues to be even partially disruptive (i.e. one in three edits are unsourced, BLP issues), I'll block him and suffer the consequences. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although you've obviously got to give him a chance having warned him, a block is long overdue. I'm absolutely staggered to see a clean block log. Best of luck with your real-life problems BTW. Hopefully your team will cheer you up a little. We'll get something off of Millwall, Donny and Leeds have already played, and you face Cardiff. There's a real chance that you could be second by tea-time! --WFC-- 00:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Love it when predictions work out :) --WFC-- 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for George Catleugh

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FLC National Treasures of Japan swords

[edit]

Hi! Since you already reviewed a List of National Treasures of Japan, I thought you could help out with the following. List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) is currently a featured list candidate and listed as Nominations urgently needing reviews which means that it might fail unless somebody (you ;-) ) reviews the list. So far it received two "support" votes and one "oppose". All issues raised in the oppose vote have been addressed (the reviewer, "The Rambling Man", just needs to revisit the page). I'd be happy if you could take the time to review the list and leave comments, questions, suggestions and a vote ("support" or "oppose") on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: Catscan

[edit]

Thank you WFC. That catscan is a great way to identify "low-quality" articles. I'm going to start going through those in next few days. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFA nom discussion

[edit]

In your comment, you mentioned "talk page stalking". I am not familiar with the term, but it seems to be something bad. Was it inappropriate for me to have notified WP:SSFC when I made the nomination? --SkotyWATC 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that makes sense. I never would have made that connection. I thought you knew about the discussion because of my post on the talk page. Good. Now I feel better about my post to the task force. What do you think of what's happend to my nom? I don't want to fight them about it because I know most of them are Wiki-lifers (per se) and I have no "polical capital" with them. I'm just taking my beating and I'll try again in a week when the list clears out again (except for the Oct. 18 nom which will be there for a month). --SkotyWATC 23:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League FAR revisit?

[edit]

Hi there WFC, thanks for your comment on the Featured article review for the Premier League article. Could you possibly revisit and see if you see any outstanding issues? Many thanks, Woody (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One polesitters flc

[edit]

Hey WFC, thanks for your comments on the formula one polesitters flc, they were very useful. I have now addressed you comments, so when you have some spare time could you please revisit, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, NapHit (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Endean

[edit]

Just did a rather random expansion on this guy's article, son't know if there's anything else to add about his days at the Vic........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

[edit]

Adam Thompson

[edit]

Hi - I don't think that you and I have crossed paths before. As far as the Adam Thompson AfD goes, I have no real concern whether the article is deleted or not, and I am in favour of your efforts to clarify the relationship between WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I personally think that the present bar is set too low, and that the minimum level should be an appearance in a league match, but I will leave it to others to put the case for or against.

I do, however, take issue with you including me in the category "editors such as that" in your discussions here. Rest assured, there are far too many articles that I would like to create about former players, so that I am not really interested in writing about present-day non-entitities.

Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PAOK FC

[edit]

I see this name change has now happened (re your RM request) and was wondering if you'd made any other similar requests e.g. see Apoel edits at [3]. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I was going to wait a while, to make sure that it wasn't an anomoly or doesn't quickly get reversed, and then double-check at WP:FOOTY, to make sure that a mass-nom won't be a waste of time. Things are a little frosty at the moment, but I'll check at WP:FOOTY when the storm in a teacup clears up. Regards, —WFC— 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

[edit]

Bill Sheppard

[edit]

Thanks for correcting my mistake on the Watford goals in the infobox. The Joyce book has very small print and at my age I need a magnifying glass to read it. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

[edit]

Request for your review/feedback

[edit]

I've suggested the addition of a new section to Seattle Sounders FC in this discussion. I would appreciate it if you could review the prose a make any changes/improvements you can think of. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by Quantpole at the Adam Thompson DRV

[edit]

I don't know if you have read Quantpole's comments at the Adam Thompson DRV here, however please let me know if you do the RfC. Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League revisit, revisit...

[edit]

Hi WFC, many thanks again for your reviews of the Premier League article. I have always thought there is something a little out of place with the managers bit and you put your finger on it! So, I have added a couple of paras, could you please revisit when you have the chance? Many thanks, Woody (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

FC Jeunesse Canach

[edit]

Please accept my apologies for that page move. It made sense to me after seeing the club's logo, but I wasn't aware of the consensus. Thanks. —Half Price 12:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

[edit]
The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
Awarded to WFCforLife, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 09:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

DYK nomination of Ken Nicholas

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Ken Nicholas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Arctic Night 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of John Stirk

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of John Stirk at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

[edit]

Please do not casually mark edits with which you disagree as vandalism, as you did to my recent edit to Watford F.C. My edit was properly-marked and summarized edit to a grammatically-correct substitute of the grammatically-incorrect use of "comprised of". -Porlob (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porlob also edited a "comprised of" phrase in the Deborah Berry page I have been working on, (check his talk page for my comments to him) but he did have a link "comprised of" is incorrect that explains it better. Check out heading 10 Alternative Phrasing which might have solutions to your editing disagreement. RifeIdeas Talk 17:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Harry Oliver (footballer)

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

[edit]

DYK for John Stirk

[edit]

Orlady (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

[edit]

Lee Hodson

[edit]

Consensus has always been to show appearances only when they have actually played, as this fails WP:CRYSTAL. I've started a topic at WT:FOOTY for a wider perspective. --Jimbo[online] 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the Northern Ireland international footballers category and removed Northern Ireland from the infobox. After your comments in the previous discussion, I am rather surprised that you have taken your present stance with Hodson. Best wishes as always. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League FAR

[edit]

Hi WFC - Could you please revisit your comments at the Premier League FAR and either add more or support the keeping or delisting of the article? Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]
[edit]

I just did some work on List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons to add a nice lead section to it. I've dabbled with this list in the past adding a bunch of the columns that are there now. I'm considering nominating it for featured list, but I'm not sure if it meets the criteria (specifically it may be too short). What do you think? Would it be a quick fail (and therefore a waste of time) or should I go ahead and try? --SkotyWATC 23:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, unfortunately I think it's too short to be taken seriously as a featured list. What's there is of high quality though. If you're going for a featured topic your best bet would be to get it peer reviewed, so that it can be counted as audited content of limited subject matter. Regards, —WFC— 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Skotywa already beat me to it. But any feedback would still be cool if you have a few minutes. Check out Talk:List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons#FL prep. Even if it is not a possibility it is some good practice. Good call on the peer review for increasing the chance of FT. Hope you get to catch some games on TV. Don't want to cross too many potential legal lines on Wikipedia but I have two sites that I find streams of both MLS and EPL games on so shoot me an email (in my toolbox) if you can't find something over there showing the Sounders on gameday. Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

[edit]

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]


Ultras

[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my change to Ultras, which is fine. I was wondering if you could suggest a better way to move forward, so I've taken a other stab at it. RV if needed Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive_2&oldid=1139175321"