This is an archive of past discussions with User:NapHit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Personally, I don't think it would pass 3b. The main article is not very long and as such, the information could be put there instead. There is also a big difference between the IPL and English football. As the IPL is a new competition compared to league football in England, which has been played since the late 1800s, I don't think there is any merit to this info warranting its own list. That's my opinion, but I would seek out a few more from FLC directors/regulars to get a clearer picture, cheers. NapHit (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of 250cc/Moto2 Motorcycle World Champions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Can you withdraw that list for now, as I would like to nominate something else right now. I have to change everything to make it correct, and it wouldn't pass the criteria right now anyways, per all the changes that need to be done. I'll be back with it, but for now, I need some, as all one table needs a re-do. TBrandley00:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi NapHit! Sorry to bother you again, but do you think School District 53 Okanagan Similkameen would be a good candidate for featured list status, as right now I'm afraid it doesn't pass 3b of the featured list criteria. This is the only article for this, and it can't be merged into anything, however, I personally believe it passes, but am not sure of what others think. Do you think it does? Thoughts? Thanks so much, TBrandley02:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this is more of an article than list, I'd be inclined to take it to GAN myself. Proabaly best to get a few more opinions before you decided what to do. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I did. :) I also asked The Rambling Man, and he said the same thing, so I took it to GAN, and I already have a reviewer, so you don't have to worry about reviewing it, but thanks so much for your opinion and help! Cheers! TBrandley20:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
List of Canada's Wonderland Attractions
I have fixed all but one of the comments you made. I made a comment to one of your comments on the review page which I think you should read.--Dom497 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no article on Wikipedia that can't be improved. Just because one has been featured doesn't mean that there is "consensus for it being this way". That line of reasoning belies a fundamental misunderstanding of both Wikipedia and the FA process. I realise that you put a lot of work into getting that list to featured status, well done on that, but it doesn't belong to you and you don't get to veto the additions of others just because you don't like them. As for invoking WP:INDISCRIMINATE, your logic is entirely spurious. The footnotes added relate directly to the subject of the article and, moreover, to the information that they are annotating. If you think the footnotes are extraneous then that calls into question many of the fields in the table, as the footnotes provide explanations for variability in the information provided. They do not impede the readability of the lead, they do not impede the readability of the table, and they only need be read by those who want to learn more. Therefore there is no reason, whatsoever, that they can't be added. Having put a lot of effort into that article, and one again kudos on getting it to featured status, I think it might be time for you to step away for a while. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and shouting down perfectly valid additions from others is both not your right and not helpful. Pyrope00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi under normal circumstances I would provide comments, but I'm currently traveling around Australia and have limited access to the internet, so I won't be able to unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Users are always welcome to help us with this newsletter. If you are interested, please leave a message on an existing editor's talkpage or sign up on the "Contributors" list of the central newsletter page, and we will tell you everything you need to know and answer your questions.
The early season was tumultuous, with seven different drivers winning the first seven races of the championship; a record for the series. It was not until the European Grand Prix in June that a driver, Ferrari'sFernando Alonso, won his second race of the year, and with it, emerged as a championship contender. Alonso maintained his hold on the championship lead for the next seven races, taking his third win in Germany and finishing on the podium in the United Kingdom, Italy and Singapore. However, costly first-lap retirements in Belgium and Japan allowed his rivals to catch up, and defending World ChampionSebastian Vettel — like Alonso, a two-time winner — took the lead in the sixteenth race of the season. Vettel, too, encountered difficulties throughout the season; contact with a backmarker left him to finish outside the points in Malaysia, while alternator failures at the European and Italian Grands Prix cost him valuable points and exclusion from qualifying in Abu Dhabi led him to start from the pit lane. Vettel entered the final race of the season with a thirteen-point lead over Alonso. Alonso needed a podium finish to stand any chance of becoming World Drivers' Champion, but in a race of attrition that finished under the safety car, Vettel finished in sixth place, scoring enough points to win his third consecutive championship, becoming the third driver to do so. In the World Constructors' Championship, Red Bull Racing secured their third consecutive title when Sebastian Vettel finished second at the United States Grand Prix.
In addition to seeing seven drivers win the first seven races, the 2012 season broke several records. The calendar for the season included twenty races, breaking the previous record of nineteen, which was first set in 2005. Six current or former World Drivers' Champions — Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso, Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Kimi Räikkönen, and Michael Schumacher — started the season, breaking the record of five established in 1970.
* Felipe Massa (7th, 1:36.937; 6th after Grosjean penalty) was given a five-place grid penalty for an unscheduled gearbox change. Late Massa grid penalty promotes Alonso
* Race finished under neutralised safety car conditions.
† Pastor Maldonado (6th; 1:13.174) was given a ten-place grid penalty for receiving his third reprimand of the season. This was due to missing the weigh-bridge during qualifying. [1]
This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Amazing User Barnstar
Congratulations, NapHit! I have decided to award you this barnstar because of your simply excellent contributions to the English Wikipedia. Thank you very much for all of your hard work here. You truly deserve this, and please enjoy it. Cheers! TBrandley20:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm currently travelling in Australia with limited access to the internet, so I won't have time to review the list unfortunately. NapHit (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to assist me in making Tomcat7 realize the folly and disruptive nature of his reverting of the valid tags. I am going to try and take this to RFC/U, but it says I need at least one other editor to try and resolve it. Ritchie333 mentioned the tags before, but I technically need at least one other editor to engage and try and resolve the matter. Tomcat7 will remove any changes made, regardless of whether or not they are valid. That much is clear, but unless I bring it to ANI, its going to be a rough road. I don't want him blocked, but his attitude is a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree his attitude is a problem. As a delegate at WP:FLC, I've encountered him before when has nominated lists that generally tend to be below the standard required to become featured. During these encounters I've noted an unwillingness to address problems, he often took a long time to respond to comments or never at all. On occasion there was also the issue of the sources not matching what the text said. Obviously in this case, there is a distinct possibility of this being evident. If he keeps removing the tags, which are valid, then you probably should go to ANI. NapHit (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Tomcat7 seems and notes to translating articles from German wiki in bulk and get them to GA or higher status on enwiki. Tomcat7 also does not personally invest in checking the material prior to translating and deliberately adds more sources then in the original document to make it appear better. ANI would likely get him blocked or sanctioned, and now that it is over 24 hours, I think the consensus would say go to RFC/U. If you had a link to the previous dealings with Tomcat7, I do believe we could make a case. Tomcat7 is knowingly doing this, and I didn't think it was his first time doing so. What he is doing is committing serious offenses by falsifying sources to get things passed. He also has a history of being rude and disruptive. If he continues after the RFC/U then I'll take it to ANI. I promise, I just need the support of at least one other editor about Tomcat7's actions and you seem to know more then I about his actions at this point. I just decided to stick with the Eckenfelder article because the falsification is so major at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
His current nomination of Danuta Gleed Literary Award has been flagged up. An editor has noted that he is using sources which do not cover what the article says. I remember this being the case with Abel Prize, George Harrison discography as well, I'm sure there are others but I'm not the issues were either flagged up or what lists they were. If you go to the talk page you can see the previous norms, definitely in the Abel Prize Ibflagged up the falsifying sources issue. It might not be there now as he might have addressed the issue. His current nom of Danuta Gleed is a case in point of him either not heeding advice or just wilfully disregarding it. He nominated a few months ago, but it failed on prose issues and was told to get a copy edit by a English speaker. Yet lo and behold, he nominated it with just four edits made to the list and without a copy edit. This for me sums up his poor attitude if something doesn't go his way he just ignores issues and then hopes it can pass later with less diligent reviewers. He has done at FLC for a while now and although its not enough to take to ANI, it doesn't the process as we have a small number of reviewers, whose efforts should not be wasted reviewing lists that are nowhere near the criteria. Anyway, that's my view, if you need any more help with this just give me a shout. NapHit (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Oi... Tomcat7 has some serious issues it seems. 4 references in the Abel prize don't contain what they should. I think we have a problem for one. I'm going to check his most current one, and if I find false references added by him, I will probably take this to ANI or something. I need more cases of it to probably have anything stick. I suspect there is plenty of other cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Just as I thought, definitely got a problem. May be worth checking lists articles he's got promoted as well in case any have fallen under the radar. I'll try and find some more examples from lists he's nom mend at FLC. NapHit (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh great, this is lovely. He's active on getting these things passed to, which is a huge concern and its also a matter of faith. In the FAC it was not addressed because it could have been there prior. But here is the diffs relating to his addition. At Abel Prize, I removed them myself now.[2][3]ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Got it. [4] He has been doing this for quite a while. And this diff is extremely damning. Let's research this more though, I think ANI is going to be required.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you find the diff of him adding it to that sentence. It is particularly key that we do so before bringing it to ANI. They won't want to go on a hunt. I'm going to contact some people on IRC for filing issues. WP:IRC under #wikipedia-en if you want to chat real-time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh and the Nika award bit for the first 2 references, its not much, but it does say, " He also set the Russian Academy Golden Eagle Award in opposition to the traditional Nika Award." As for calling it a counterweight? A bit of a synthesis as he did not concieve it as such. I'm going to mark it though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Green Cardamom added the ref. I removed it and replaced with CN tag. I'll deal with this later I think, but yeah it is concerning, I've raised the errors at the talk page for the other. Not sure how it got through FAC like that.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take this to RFC/U. I think we have both tried to solve this, Tomcat7 is not responding and addressing the concerns. He's been blocked twice before for edit warring, we've been nice for now. He is obviously watching this page, so it will be no surprise when RFC/U comes up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Forty-nine drivers have suffered a fatal accident while driving a Formula One car since the creation of the Formula One World Championship in 1950. Thirty-two of the drivers died during a World Championship Grand Prix race weekend, six during a test session and eleven during a non-championship Formula One event. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has seen the most fatalities; seven drivers have died there during the course of the Indianapolis 500. Fifteen drivers died in the 1950s; fourteen in the 1960s; twelve in the 1970s; four in the 1980s and two in the 1990s. No driver has suffered a fatal accident since 1994, making this the longest period in F1 history without a driver fatality. Only two Formula One Champions have died while racing or practicing in Formula One, Jochen Rindt in 1970, and Ayrton Senna(pictured) in 1994. Rindt is the only driver to win the championship posthumously.
Ratzenberger and Senna died within a day of each other and there hasn't been a fatality since. It seems both petty and a disservice to Ratzenberger to undo the sentence. There was nothing wrong with it grammatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
not petty at all I don't appreciate that. It's simply untrue to say they were the last to die as it implies they died on the same day, which is not correct. As it is a featured list it needs to be accurate. It would be doing our readers a disservice to potentially mislead them. NapHit (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I checked with him, he capped the comment. Does that mean the list will be promoted soon since there's 6 supports and all issues were addressed? :) Till11:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Its more than likely it will be promoted whenever me or Giants update the page next. I don't think it's fair for me to say outright it will get promoted as I don't think that's very professional and another director may disagree. So perhaps best not to ask such a direct question like this in the future, although I know you're acting in good faith, someone else could read it differently. NapHit (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks, cause I'm working on another list that wIll be taken to FLC soon and you can't have two nominations open at once. Till15:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That's only if your current list has no supports and unresolved comments. So I think you're alright to nominate it in spite of this list being up. NapHit (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
First of all, Happy New Year. Please, help me on the peer review of Priyanka Chopra list of awards and nominations. As decided during flc, to get wider opinions on the list the PR is going on. Pls, contribute and help me regarding its PR. This time, i don't want to be left behind. I want it to be complete and one of the best lists on Wikipedia. Please contribute and help me. Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra/archive2. Thank you.—PKS:1142·(TALK)19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey dude, hope all is well with you. I was wondering if you were just waiting for your current FLC to conclude before nominating the above? I'd be more than happy to run it now as a co-nom, I was going to do this list some time ago but it looks like you and others beat me to it! I'm not worried about getting any recognition for it, but I'm happy to do any updates that are required... Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Alls great with me thanks, enjoying my travels round Oz. Hope everything is good back in old blighty. I was thinking about it, but Saharu4u has done most of the work and I assumed he would be nominating. I just noticed it could do with a copyedit, which accounts for my edits. I doubt I'll nominate it, so best to check with Sahara/Zia and see what his plans are. Sure he'd be happy to co-nom with you! NapHit (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright, will ask the others. If you care to tell me where you are in Oz, so much the better, but enjoy!! Happy New Year to you as well by the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy new year to you as well! I'm currently in Brisbane, been here for nearly a month. Lots of great stuff, particularly enjoyed the South Bank, great place to relax and it offers an excellent view of the city. I'm heading to Adelaide next week, really looking forward to going there, city looks amazing from pictures I've seen. NapHit (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me what's happening with the nomination? I nominated it on December 10, 2012... 1 month ago, it has 8 support and only 1 oppose (with all the respect, the comments are senseless, i replied to him and he never came back to revisit it)? Thanks:) — Tomíca(T2ME)19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that Matthew's comments are "senseless" as you put it, he used to be an FL director, so I think his views are important. His comments have validity as well, it's not unreasonable to suggest his videos from N sync should be included. Personally I would like to see him satisfied his comments are addressed. Also just because has numerous supports does not necessarily mean it will be promoted, its not a vote. Five of those supports, we're from people related to the music project and they supported without commenting, some when there were errors with the list. Also could provide a diff of you asking Matthew to revisit as looking through his talk page archives I can't find a request. NapHit (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, sorry If I asked man. Just because he is your friend (and was a FLC director) doesn't mean I should satisfy his comments. This is about credit, nowhere in NSync was Justin Timberlake as solo. I don't have to repeat this thousand times anyway. — Tomíca(T2ME)10:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say he was my friend. The fact he was an FL director is important because, he has reviewed multiple lists and is aware of what constitutes a featured list. The comments are valid and should be addressed rather than getting all defensive about the issue. You need to assume good faith, he wasnt intentionally derailing the nom, just asking valid comments. The point he was making is that it is a Justin Timberlake videography, he was featured in videos by N sync. I think if you make it clear the list refers to his solo work then there shouldn't be an issue.
Yes I noticed, but I am travelling around Australia, so wikipedia is not my highest priority at the moment. It will more than likely be promoted, there is no rush and remember there are other directors as opposed to me, when one of them goes through FLC next I'm sure it will be promoted. NapHit (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
FLRC/Powderfinger discography is still open. You presented a case for its delisting over a month ago: I believed that I have addressed all your concerns by 11 January. I've also handled concerns from other editors and believe that the list should retain its FL status. Could you provide a response to the current situation of the list.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I have resolved all of your initial comments, any further insight you might have on the list would be greatly appreciated. Harriastalk10:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey. Would it be possible for you to opine here for a TFL? As a part of centenary celebration of Indian cinema on 3rd May, we would like to have this FL on 6th May for main page appearance. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Hi Naphit, I was just wondering how you see your current status at FLC due to your long activity. Back in March an IP removed your name from the Template:FLC-instructions, and a few days later I noticed that your name was gone (though I just realized now it was an IP who did it) and removed your name from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Closure log. When you're done your Australian trip, do you see yourself returning to active delegation? If so, I'll reinsert your name in both places. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Crisco, I don't see myself editing again at the rate that that I was before my trip, so its best that someone else takes my place. I appreciate the offer, but I am liable to be inactive for long periods of time, good luck with the process, I'll try and help out with reviews if I can. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:2006 FA Cup Final Programme.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:2006 FA Cup Final Programme.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2006 FA Cup Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Fletcher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The rsssf source is the one, an inline citation is not necessarily needed as the table is sourced by the general ref and the table clearly states this fact. I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war with you over this, but the information should be in the lead, perhaps instead of removing it you could addd a citation yourself? NapHit (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2012 FA Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
in [[1990 French Open – Men's Singles|1990]]. American [[Jim Courier]] won consecutive titles in [[1991 French Open – Men's Singles and [[1992 French Open – Men's Singles|1992]] before Spaniard [[
Open – Men's Singles|2004]]. [[2005 French Open – Men's Singles|2005]] would see the start of [[Rafael Nadal's domination of the event; he won four consecutive titles from 2005 to [[2008 French
I have done some fairly heavy copyediting in the first paragraph of the "Formation" section because, in all honesty, I couldn't work out from your version quite what was going on between Houlding and ths directors. I've looked at the sources, and I think I've clarified the essentials – no need to over-detail – but the sourcing might need strengthening. I got some details, e.g. the rental figures, from the club history, and you may need to add this as a further citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2006 FA Community Shield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford Bridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi again, while having a nosey in your sandbox I noticed the FT box you've prepared for LFC. FYI only 50% of the articles need to be featured per the criteria, so I think it would pass if you nominated it before the History articles become featured. And I've started a supplementary nomination for the YCFC FT, if you'd like to take a look :) Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ye, I realised once I'd changed the History of Liverpool F.C. page to a disambiguation page, I could go ahead with the featured topic. Once the current History passes, I'll nominate and I supported your nom, fantastic work on the York articles! NapHit (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2003 Football League Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
No GA awards don't prohibit users from further editing you are right, but there is no need to change something that works. The table you removed was fully MOS:DTT accessible, whereas the one you added is not. Also the use of flags as decoration should be kept to a minimum. NapHit (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1995 Football League Cup Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Kennedy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2008–09 Liverpool F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael O'Connor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, thank you for your edits on the article about the Mistwedstrijd. I was surprised when I saw it, it was completely changed from how I drafted it. Which is fine of course but there were several quirks of the match that were left out of the article (it was a very quirky match.) Like for instance Sjaak Swart walking off the pitch early and heading for the lockers, only to come back on the pitch and score a goal. There was an element of humor to the match (at least from a Dutch perspective anyway ;) ) The article is much improved but it reads very differently now. I would say it was successfully converted from a perspective of an Amsterdamer to that of one from Liverpool. Thanks again, I hope to hear your thoughts on this article, and maybe help to find a balance without curving the actual humor of it all. Cheers, and have a great weekend (Subzzee (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC))
Hey, thanks for the kind words on the revamp. I'm trying to improve every Liverpool match to at least Good Article status. The bit about Swart is actually still included in the article. I tried to keep it neutral and in keeping with other match articles and I have a few books which detailed parts of the match so I included them as well. If you feel like bits could be improved slightly, then don't hesitate to add bits back or on. I'm aware I removed virtually all the Dutch sources, but I found a lot of English sources and the Google translation to English wasn't the best. Thanks for writing the article in the first place @Subzzee:, hopefully it gets to GA now. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2008–09 Liverpool F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santiago Bernabeu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just letting you know that I've uploaded several photos of the match here. There's a lot more of other matches available, so let me know if you want more transferring. BaldBoris17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Rugby Union World Cup hat-tricks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Latham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Rugby Union World Cup hat-tricks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Denis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
_by_Ron.jpg)
.jpg)
