Hey, just a quick hello. The NCFC honours section is a right mess. I just changed it from saying NCFC had been League Champions three times to Second Division champs, but then, of course, 03/04 it was First Division (or was it the Championship by then, can't remember...), and it also says the club were runners-up in 81/82 while in the main history it says third. Can you sort it? Cheers! The Rambling Man 07:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dweller, and thanks very much for your kind words. I've seen a lot of your work too and you've always impressed me. Keep it up. Hope you have a good holiday. I'm back on WP now but I'm a bit short of time for the present. All the best. -- BlackJack | talk page 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Archive7, thanks for your support in my successful
RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
For the Foxes? Whatever next... Thanks for the cake! The Rambling Man 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to your alert, I did some work on the page - while unbeknownst to me (as there's no alert for an "edit conflict" when a comment's being posted on the associated Talk page), another User made a valid point about sourcing. A check revealed that my ad lib translation was itself "unencyclopedic," as having no evident support in other Web sources. This led me to revise what I'd written, with a solution I hope will serve the purpose. As a native speaker of US English, I'd say that "lazy bum" was used rather than simply "bum" which in our lingo—and rather dated, at that—generaly connotes "hobo." Objectively speaking, you turned to a fairly qualified though not necessarily objective arbiter: not only am I a professional Hebrew– English translator, I'm a Eurovision fan and resident of Israel since late 1984. Local viewers of my acquaintance were mildly horrified at this song's winning the pre-Eurovision, and quite bewildered at its high ranking in the international competition. We could best understand this as a "protest vote" by Europeans fed up with the canned/commercial nature of the mainstream entries. Understandably, we were nonetheless cheered—as every year—by votes for the Israeli entry as indicative of... well, if not outright philo- Zionism, at least not rejection of what's sometimes considered a rogue state and pariah nation (dare I say, antisemitism). Anyway, I did some minor editing as well; hope my contribution's of some help in clarifying the point of concern. -- Thanks for the heads-up, Deborahjay 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I replied to your questions and have been waiting for a reply or follow up. I didn't know if you were still doing this, but just to let you know. Get back to me soon on this as I do want to continue my coaching swiftly. Many thanks, Extranet ( Talk | Contribs) 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Test.
I thank you Dweller, for your wonderful ode
That appeared just recently in my talk page code
Your poetry left me in a state of delight
And I look forward to helping you fight the good fight
-
Gwernol
13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! - Dweller 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hehe... I bet we can't remember all things all the time. :-) — Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:33 Z
In response to your complaint in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard 2, I have added a longer answer to question 2, and a reply appended to your answer. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard 14:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for watching my user pages. I'm back, for a little bit here and there at least. The Transhumanist 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
When can I expect your lesson to be completed? Any chance that The Rambling Man can co-author that with you? (Might be more fun as a collaboration, and would get done faster). The Transhumanist 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the NPOV edits on John Barton King. I've had a little trouble keeping those sneaky instances out of the article because I'm such a big fan of the man. Thank you for your help.-- Eva b d 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
For you :-) Tintin 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's bursting at the seams now, thanks to HornetMike... I'll have a look over some of them and see where we go. Oldelpaso has a few comments remaining as well... The Rambling Man 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Running Man Barnstar | |
For all your hard work on cricket articles. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. Thanks for the Barnie. Agreed re Brett Lee - and I took the hint (!). What's that weird stuff at the foot of his article? -- Dweller 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have known Bart for several years now and he does not follow the rules. To change other people's messages is wrong, and he has been repeatedly warned about this many times, but fails to listen. If you are to stand up for what is right, I suggest you send him a message, not me. Bart lives in another country and knows this is not a 'threat,' it is a warning that continued violation of not just Wikipedia rules but standard worldwide literary practice is something that could have negative consequences in academia. R Young { yakł talk} 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that Winston Churchill standing up to Adolph Hitler is 'stooping to another's level.' It is the idea that we must be 'above' one another that is actually more dangerous. For, by placing ourselves on a pedestal, we make our position much more untenable. Hence the US defeat in Vietnam. Also, Bart is the one that is messing up what I write, not the other way around. Is it too much to ask you to advise Bart NOT to do it? Your messages to me accomplish nothing. Punishing a judge for punishing a criminal won't make a criminal behave. I am not Mike Nifong here. Bart is clearly guilty; he signs his name.
True, you can censor me but since I would then not be able to add new information, the real victims would be the world's education on the topic. I would then censor Bart on non-Wikipedian sites and he would then be left in the dark. Everyone loses. Would it be too much to ask for you to set ego aside and do the right thing...give Bart a warning? What is it about standing behind doing the right thing, when the other side has repeatedly broken the rules and has not respected repeated requests to stop it? Also, I FAIL to see how the words 'consequences on Wikipedia' constitute a 'threat'. What, is his computer going to 'zap' him? Since when is Wikipedia a weapon? R Young { yakł talk} 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected all those articles you listed. Let me know if any more come to light. Some of the previous accounts have only been blocked for a limited period, I notice, so we may have to keep an eye on them again. I indef blocked the latest one. Good work. :) Bubba hotep 10:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Will this link do for you, sir? http://www.fourfourtwo.premiumtv.co.uk/page/BigRead/0,,11442~921518,00.html Nuggets 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC
Nothing is as simple as it looks at first :-/ Now I'll have to create a dab page for Liaqat Ali to fix the whole thing. Tintin 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting all of my 'biased' work. I do not want any of my work to appear on that page any longer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.108.6.210 ( talk) 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Hey, moved. For future reference, just move __TOC__ to where you want the TOC to appear within the article. Thanks for casting your eyes over my mini-project(s), most significantly Italian football champions. I want this article to be bang damned hot and perfect, then I'm going for a featured list. Compared with the Danish football champions and Swedish football champions which are already FL's, I think I'm in with a very good chance. Feel free to keep helping out! And let me know when you want to get back to NCFC, I've made as many changes as I feel confident to do following the peer review comments. The Rambling Man 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"airing grievances in this manner is unproductive and unfair (the targets have no place editing the page to refute the accusations)." - sorry, who is airing grievances? I did post diffs. That's it. And everybody is able to improve the page. The "accusations" are well sourced. Every had a diff. The reader could himself compare the actions with the written policies and see if they were violated. BTW, I tried to set up a project to collect abuse issues, but this was deleted speedily without talk. A clique of admins tries to hide evidences for their abuses. They use their weapons in conflicts they are involved themselves and they use them out of policy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I love it! Thanks very much, mate. All the best. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
— Pious7 Talk Contribs 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Please check WP:BOT and WP:BOTREQ -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's populated. One thing we get used to on UCFD is that sometimes it can take a while for the system to cycle through user accounts, updating them to their new categories. So while your page knows you're in the new category, the system doesn't yet. But it will. Those are the hiccups of an object-oriented database, I guess.-- Mike Selinker 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How's this one (if you like I may change it, as I have been trying to make it more color gradient, but just now found a great chart)? ~ Magnus animum
~
Magnus
animum
00:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Main page tilt? I think Australia probably will make the final. Too bad England didn't beat RSA, because then AUS-RSA S/F would have guaranteed either Colly or Gilly on the main page. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The unfortunate side-effect is that it raises a barrier for inactive admins to return to the wiki. >Radiant< 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dweller,
I thought of it this way: If we had an article for 2007 County Championship, it would probably only be a redirect to 2007 English cricket season, so I felt justified linking straight there.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[1] - thanks for your encouraging note. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[2] - sorry for late reply. quite busy currently. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me until you get to the WP:FAR section where it tails off. Presumably you've not finished this bit yet? The Rambling Man 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dweller. Thank you for the comments about the letter in The Times. I am the writer of that letter, and seeing Mr. Steadman's (The person I was replying to) comments about Wikipedia, insensed me. I am part of the RCP and Counter Vandalism teams here, and for him to suggest that we were "littered with inaccuracies" made me wanna sort him out. I have since learned that this Mr Steadman had an account here, and was nailed for trolling and vandalism, which suggests to me that he has an axe to grind against Wikipedia. Once again, thanks very much and please take care. Thor Malmjursson 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'flow
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. -- Shirahadasha 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put a Proposed Deletion tag back after someone removed it. This is against the WP:PROD policy, especially ": If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back". You can disagree with the removal, but then to have it deleted you have to take it to AfD. Anyway, a quick Google revealed that it is reported in French in Le Journal de l'Automobile, the Spanish El Mundo, the Irish Sunday Tribune. I have no interest in this article (and didn't intend to spend this time on it), I just check if expired prods should be kept or deleted. If you want sources for the article, either search for them or put a "source" tag on it. If you can't find any of think there aren't any, put it up for AfD. Fram 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. The Transhumanist 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dweller, I hereby promote you to admin coach. You've been helping others on the VC as well as I have done, and you are welcome to continue doing so, and you are also welcome to bring in new students whom you've selected, if you so desire. We've got room for a couple more, since some of the current students are on wikibreak. The key attributes to look for are enthusiasm, dedication, and a gracious attitude toward others.
By the way, I've picked up where we've left off at the VC, and I'm in the middle of posting new assignments. Feel free to jump in on the fun. Sincerely, The Transhumanist
Hey, new coach-kid! Nice one. Firstly, one-all, fair result. Secondly, I've self-nom'ed my Italian football champions for WP:FL so feel free to add your comments/support/mocking comments to the review! Hope you had a good weekend... The Rambling Man 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just thought you ought to double check everything that's left on the peer review - there are still some To-do's outstanding which will get brought up at the FAC I guess... The Rambling Man 15:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. After some careful consideration, I have to conclude that requiring or even encouraging endorsement by WikiProjects is a bad idea. It would entail voting and discussion on WikiProject talk pages concerning RfA's, effectively expanding the RfA process to WikiProject pages. That's pure bureaucracy, and won't improve Wikipedia at all. WikiProjects don't need that type of distraction. They've got their work cut out for them already. The Transhumanist 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, several comments at the FAC now, I've responded to the ones that were there before I went to bed, but Jayron32 has added some more overnight. Thought I'd draw your attention to it! The Rambling Man 07:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[3] That may be sensible (at this time). It's really important to be mindful of WP:CANVASS when talking about potential RfA's on project pages as more than one has become derailed over that issue. I would nearly suggest leaving it a week or so so that the discussion isn't associated with the RfA.
That does not change the gist of my comments at the project page, just that I recognise the current reality. — Moondyne 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we addressed your comments on the FA-nom. Would you be willing to re-evalaute the article? Sportskido8 08:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I'm moving that here :) – Riana ऋ 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. It might be possible to create a free version of the Norwich coat of arms, as the original design is probably public domain by now. Only that rendering is copyrighted. You should also use -self copyright (GFDL-self) tags if you are the original author, or simply mention that fact on the image page ( Image:Play off Final in Cardiff 2002.jpg). ed g2s • talk 09:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think appending pieces of sourced gossip help the article, it is not a fact and indeed is charcter deprivating -- Vivbaker 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. The finest early sequence that anybody had in fcc was that of Joe Solomon but he had a 13 in the fourth innings. In India in recent times, Amol Mazumdar had a great start but missed out in his fifth innings. Tintin 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your attempt at garnering a RFA-nom (or endorsement) from the cricket project. Good job on trying this experiment. Whether it works or not it was worth a try to test the waters, especially on such a prominent wikiproject. Personally, i think such noms would be quite convincing since they come from a group that know the user well. David D. (Talk) 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The article was VERY POV in favor of the 'techeiles' people. The fact is that only Kahane/Kach people wear it and that all poskim have condemned and forbidden it. -- Rabbeinu 09:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it'll just be easier to just destroy what I wrote. If it's needed, I can put a small note explaning, but its not like I really care about what I wrote. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Go for it.
The Transhumanist 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, red shirts eh? I think you'll need another source because you have to be a subscriber to reach that page (bleugh, I had to make an account on the official Norwich site, whatever next?). It's not really crystal balling if we can find another, free, reliable source... The Rambling Man 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The images section needs work. The reader could use advice on where to look for pictures, tips on finding them, etc.
Also, some sections have nothing but bulletted lists. That content should be presented as paragraphs.
Getting close...
The Transhumanist 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I see Gilchrist is on the Main page! Hope you got the day off to stave off the main page vandalism. Quadzilla99 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wandering what you're comment "New Stadium more logically should fall into the Stadia section as a subsection" exactly means, as the New stadium section is a subsection of the Stadia section. Mattythewhite 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned in your draft that FAs can be nominated to appear on the Main Page. I thought all FAs were routinely scheduled to appear on the Main Page as a matter of course (I know for sure that featured pictures are). Could you check on this please? The Transhumanist 22:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So, while the other stuff goes on, and now NCFC has been promoted (and my mini-side project of Italian football champions seems to be going slooooowly towards promotion) and with concerns in the other place of me reducing my FA output, it's about time we had a timetable for a couple of new FA projects. What say you? The Rambling Man 17:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've got through all your comments left on the FAC page + I've got some copyediting done. Much else need doing do you think? Thanks, Mattythewhite 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. :) But Riana outsped me on blocking him. :D -- soum (0_o) 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick hello. The NCFC honours section is a right mess. I just changed it from saying NCFC had been League Champions three times to Second Division champs, but then, of course, 03/04 it was First Division (or was it the Championship by then, can't remember...), and it also says the club were runners-up in 81/82 while in the main history it says third. Can you sort it? Cheers! The Rambling Man 07:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Dweller, and thanks very much for your kind words. I've seen a lot of your work too and you've always impressed me. Keep it up. Hope you have a good holiday. I'm back on WP now but I'm a bit short of time for the present. All the best. -- BlackJack | talk page 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Archive7, thanks for your support in my successful
RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
For the Foxes? Whatever next... Thanks for the cake! The Rambling Man 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to your alert, I did some work on the page - while unbeknownst to me (as there's no alert for an "edit conflict" when a comment's being posted on the associated Talk page), another User made a valid point about sourcing. A check revealed that my ad lib translation was itself "unencyclopedic," as having no evident support in other Web sources. This led me to revise what I'd written, with a solution I hope will serve the purpose. As a native speaker of US English, I'd say that "lazy bum" was used rather than simply "bum" which in our lingo—and rather dated, at that—generaly connotes "hobo." Objectively speaking, you turned to a fairly qualified though not necessarily objective arbiter: not only am I a professional Hebrew– English translator, I'm a Eurovision fan and resident of Israel since late 1984. Local viewers of my acquaintance were mildly horrified at this song's winning the pre-Eurovision, and quite bewildered at its high ranking in the international competition. We could best understand this as a "protest vote" by Europeans fed up with the canned/commercial nature of the mainstream entries. Understandably, we were nonetheless cheered—as every year—by votes for the Israeli entry as indicative of... well, if not outright philo- Zionism, at least not rejection of what's sometimes considered a rogue state and pariah nation (dare I say, antisemitism). Anyway, I did some minor editing as well; hope my contribution's of some help in clarifying the point of concern. -- Thanks for the heads-up, Deborahjay 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I replied to your questions and have been waiting for a reply or follow up. I didn't know if you were still doing this, but just to let you know. Get back to me soon on this as I do want to continue my coaching swiftly. Many thanks, Extranet ( Talk | Contribs) 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Test.
I thank you Dweller, for your wonderful ode
That appeared just recently in my talk page code
Your poetry left me in a state of delight
And I look forward to helping you fight the good fight
-
Gwernol
13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! - Dweller 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hehe... I bet we can't remember all things all the time. :-) — Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 13:33 Z
In response to your complaint in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anthony Appleyard 2, I have added a longer answer to question 2, and a reply appended to your answer. Thanks. Anthony Appleyard 14:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for watching my user pages. I'm back, for a little bit here and there at least. The Transhumanist 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
When can I expect your lesson to be completed? Any chance that The Rambling Man can co-author that with you? (Might be more fun as a collaboration, and would get done faster). The Transhumanist 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the NPOV edits on John Barton King. I've had a little trouble keeping those sneaky instances out of the article because I'm such a big fan of the man. Thank you for your help.-- Eva b d 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
For you :-) Tintin 13:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's bursting at the seams now, thanks to HornetMike... I'll have a look over some of them and see where we go. Oldelpaso has a few comments remaining as well... The Rambling Man 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Running Man Barnstar | |
For all your hard work on cricket articles. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 08:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
Hi. Thanks for the Barnie. Agreed re Brett Lee - and I took the hint (!). What's that weird stuff at the foot of his article? -- Dweller 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings,
I have known Bart for several years now and he does not follow the rules. To change other people's messages is wrong, and he has been repeatedly warned about this many times, but fails to listen. If you are to stand up for what is right, I suggest you send him a message, not me. Bart lives in another country and knows this is not a 'threat,' it is a warning that continued violation of not just Wikipedia rules but standard worldwide literary practice is something that could have negative consequences in academia. R Young { yakł talk} 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that Winston Churchill standing up to Adolph Hitler is 'stooping to another's level.' It is the idea that we must be 'above' one another that is actually more dangerous. For, by placing ourselves on a pedestal, we make our position much more untenable. Hence the US defeat in Vietnam. Also, Bart is the one that is messing up what I write, not the other way around. Is it too much to ask you to advise Bart NOT to do it? Your messages to me accomplish nothing. Punishing a judge for punishing a criminal won't make a criminal behave. I am not Mike Nifong here. Bart is clearly guilty; he signs his name.
True, you can censor me but since I would then not be able to add new information, the real victims would be the world's education on the topic. I would then censor Bart on non-Wikipedian sites and he would then be left in the dark. Everyone loses. Would it be too much to ask for you to set ego aside and do the right thing...give Bart a warning? What is it about standing behind doing the right thing, when the other side has repeatedly broken the rules and has not respected repeated requests to stop it? Also, I FAIL to see how the words 'consequences on Wikipedia' constitute a 'threat'. What, is his computer going to 'zap' him? Since when is Wikipedia a weapon? R Young { yakł talk} 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've semi-protected all those articles you listed. Let me know if any more come to light. Some of the previous accounts have only been blocked for a limited period, I notice, so we may have to keep an eye on them again. I indef blocked the latest one. Good work. :) Bubba hotep 10:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Will this link do for you, sir? http://www.fourfourtwo.premiumtv.co.uk/page/BigRead/0,,11442~921518,00.html Nuggets 16:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC
Nothing is as simple as it looks at first :-/ Now I'll have to create a dab page for Liaqat Ali to fix the whole thing. Tintin 12:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am deleting all of my 'biased' work. I do not want any of my work to appear on that page any longer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.108.6.210 ( talk) 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Hey, moved. For future reference, just move __TOC__ to where you want the TOC to appear within the article. Thanks for casting your eyes over my mini-project(s), most significantly Italian football champions. I want this article to be bang damned hot and perfect, then I'm going for a featured list. Compared with the Danish football champions and Swedish football champions which are already FL's, I think I'm in with a very good chance. Feel free to keep helping out! And let me know when you want to get back to NCFC, I've made as many changes as I feel confident to do following the peer review comments. The Rambling Man 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"airing grievances in this manner is unproductive and unfair (the targets have no place editing the page to refute the accusations)." - sorry, who is airing grievances? I did post diffs. That's it. And everybody is able to improve the page. The "accusations" are well sourced. Every had a diff. The reader could himself compare the actions with the written policies and see if they were violated. BTW, I tried to set up a project to collect abuse issues, but this was deleted speedily without talk. A clique of admins tries to hide evidences for their abuses. They use their weapons in conflicts they are involved themselves and they use them out of policy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I love it! Thanks very much, mate. All the best. -- BlackJack | talk page 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
— Pious7 Talk Contribs 10:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Please check WP:BOT and WP:BOTREQ -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's populated. One thing we get used to on UCFD is that sometimes it can take a while for the system to cycle through user accounts, updating them to their new categories. So while your page knows you're in the new category, the system doesn't yet. But it will. Those are the hiccups of an object-oriented database, I guess.-- Mike Selinker 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How's this one (if you like I may change it, as I have been trying to make it more color gradient, but just now found a great chart)? ~ Magnus animum
~
Magnus
animum
00:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Main page tilt? I think Australia probably will make the final. Too bad England didn't beat RSA, because then AUS-RSA S/F would have guaranteed either Colly or Gilly on the main page. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The unfortunate side-effect is that it raises a barrier for inactive admins to return to the wiki. >Radiant< 11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dweller,
I thought of it this way: If we had an article for 2007 County Championship, it would probably only be a redirect to 2007 English cricket season, so I felt justified linking straight there.
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[1] - thanks for your encouraging note. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[2] - sorry for late reply. quite busy currently. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me until you get to the WP:FAR section where it tails off. Presumably you've not finished this bit yet? The Rambling Man 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dweller. Thank you for the comments about the letter in The Times. I am the writer of that letter, and seeing Mr. Steadman's (The person I was replying to) comments about Wikipedia, insensed me. I am part of the RCP and Counter Vandalism teams here, and for him to suggest that we were "littered with inaccuracies" made me wanna sort him out. I have since learned that this Mr Steadman had an account here, and was nailed for trolling and vandalism, which suggests to me that he has an axe to grind against Wikipedia. Once again, thanks very much and please take care. Thor Malmjursson 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Talk with the 'flow
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. -- Shirahadasha 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put a Proposed Deletion tag back after someone removed it. This is against the WP:PROD policy, especially ": If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back". You can disagree with the removal, but then to have it deleted you have to take it to AfD. Anyway, a quick Google revealed that it is reported in French in Le Journal de l'Automobile, the Spanish El Mundo, the Irish Sunday Tribune. I have no interest in this article (and didn't intend to spend this time on it), I just check if expired prods should be kept or deleted. If you want sources for the article, either search for them or put a "source" tag on it. If you can't find any of think there aren't any, put it up for AfD. Fram 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. The Transhumanist 21:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Dweller, I hereby promote you to admin coach. You've been helping others on the VC as well as I have done, and you are welcome to continue doing so, and you are also welcome to bring in new students whom you've selected, if you so desire. We've got room for a couple more, since some of the current students are on wikibreak. The key attributes to look for are enthusiasm, dedication, and a gracious attitude toward others.
By the way, I've picked up where we've left off at the VC, and I'm in the middle of posting new assignments. Feel free to jump in on the fun. Sincerely, The Transhumanist
Hey, new coach-kid! Nice one. Firstly, one-all, fair result. Secondly, I've self-nom'ed my Italian football champions for WP:FL so feel free to add your comments/support/mocking comments to the review! Hope you had a good weekend... The Rambling Man 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just thought you ought to double check everything that's left on the peer review - there are still some To-do's outstanding which will get brought up at the FAC I guess... The Rambling Man 15:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. After some careful consideration, I have to conclude that requiring or even encouraging endorsement by WikiProjects is a bad idea. It would entail voting and discussion on WikiProject talk pages concerning RfA's, effectively expanding the RfA process to WikiProject pages. That's pure bureaucracy, and won't improve Wikipedia at all. WikiProjects don't need that type of distraction. They've got their work cut out for them already. The Transhumanist 07:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, several comments at the FAC now, I've responded to the ones that were there before I went to bed, but Jayron32 has added some more overnight. Thought I'd draw your attention to it! The Rambling Man 07:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[3] That may be sensible (at this time). It's really important to be mindful of WP:CANVASS when talking about potential RfA's on project pages as more than one has become derailed over that issue. I would nearly suggest leaving it a week or so so that the discussion isn't associated with the RfA.
That does not change the gist of my comments at the project page, just that I recognise the current reality. — Moondyne 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we addressed your comments on the FA-nom. Would you be willing to re-evalaute the article? Sportskido8 08:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I'm moving that here :) – Riana ऋ 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. It might be possible to create a free version of the Norwich coat of arms, as the original design is probably public domain by now. Only that rendering is copyrighted. You should also use -self copyright (GFDL-self) tags if you are the original author, or simply mention that fact on the image page ( Image:Play off Final in Cardiff 2002.jpg). ed g2s • talk 09:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think appending pieces of sourced gossip help the article, it is not a fact and indeed is charcter deprivating -- Vivbaker 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. The finest early sequence that anybody had in fcc was that of Joe Solomon but he had a 13 in the fourth innings. In India in recent times, Amol Mazumdar had a great start but missed out in his fifth innings. Tintin 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just saw your attempt at garnering a RFA-nom (or endorsement) from the cricket project. Good job on trying this experiment. Whether it works or not it was worth a try to test the waters, especially on such a prominent wikiproject. Personally, i think such noms would be quite convincing since they come from a group that know the user well. David D. (Talk) 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The article was VERY POV in favor of the 'techeiles' people. The fact is that only Kahane/Kach people wear it and that all poskim have condemned and forbidden it. -- Rabbeinu 09:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it'll just be easier to just destroy what I wrote. If it's needed, I can put a small note explaning, but its not like I really care about what I wrote. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Go for it.
The Transhumanist 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, red shirts eh? I think you'll need another source because you have to be a subscriber to reach that page (bleugh, I had to make an account on the official Norwich site, whatever next?). It's not really crystal balling if we can find another, free, reliable source... The Rambling Man 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The images section needs work. The reader could use advice on where to look for pictures, tips on finding them, etc.
Also, some sections have nothing but bulletted lists. That content should be presented as paragraphs.
Getting close...
The Transhumanist 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I see Gilchrist is on the Main page! Hope you got the day off to stave off the main page vandalism. Quadzilla99 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wandering what you're comment "New Stadium more logically should fall into the Stadia section as a subsection" exactly means, as the New stadium section is a subsection of the Stadia section. Mattythewhite 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned in your draft that FAs can be nominated to appear on the Main Page. I thought all FAs were routinely scheduled to appear on the Main Page as a matter of course (I know for sure that featured pictures are). Could you check on this please? The Transhumanist 22:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So, while the other stuff goes on, and now NCFC has been promoted (and my mini-side project of Italian football champions seems to be going slooooowly towards promotion) and with concerns in the other place of me reducing my FA output, it's about time we had a timetable for a couple of new FA projects. What say you? The Rambling Man 17:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've got through all your comments left on the FAC page + I've got some copyediting done. Much else need doing do you think? Thanks, Mattythewhite 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. :) But Riana outsped me on blocking him. :D -- soum (0_o) 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)