User talk:NewTestLeper79/Archive 19

Chops

It seems you still aren't fully up to speed with Mr Hendry's nicknames, I think as I mentioned previously it is all to do with his lookalike of yesteryear Charlie Chops. I suggest you read Clive Everton's history of snooker, though a little old it should give you all the background you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.39.14 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Whobot and CFD notices

You had previously left the following nomination on Whobots talk page. Please note that it is a Bot that does categories. Please do not leave CFD or any other notices on it's talk page, as it cannot discuss them. There are directions on contacting it's owner, me, on that page, this is where you can post such notices.

CfD nomination of Category:Sports in the United States
I have nominated Category:Sports in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Sport in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the
discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.
Dudesleeper /  Talk 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

However, I am currently unavailable for such notices at this time.

Thank you Who (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Sarumio

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Sarumio (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarumio. Any input you have to offer will certainly help me formulate an outside view on the merits of the matter. Thank you -- Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jeanfield Swifts badge.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BFC

Cheers. Aye I agree it is worth getting it done (even though it is indeed a pain in the arse!). From that same book (The Khaki Years) I've also just expanded the Horace Fairhurst article and will also work on the 1917-18 and 1918-19 seasons next as well as a couple of other players from that era. As always, with my mistakes, thanks for correcting them. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember that Burnley match well, funny looking back just how many away fans we used to let in at Bloomfield Road. And great to know how fondly he remembers his time here and the late King Billy Ayre! I wondered how long it would be before your YouTube video would appear on a forum, and it appeared today LOL.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it is on the Vital Blackpool forum, which I see you've found now! With the Blackburn Rovers score, I have checked the book again and Gerry Wolstenholme definitely has the score as 2-1 with Williamson scoring both goals, and he (Wolstehholme) is widely regarded as the authority on all things Blackpool FC.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow Rangers

I did notice that you reverted an addition to the Rangers article with the words , he is pro Celtic, and anti Rangers. Not to me, another editor. I have made changes to the article, and while I'm a celtic supporter I hope you don't think I am doing this because I'm anti Rangers. Jack forbes (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Hello there, I'm curious as to why you added the ref to both clauses as shown in this diff when as far as I can see once would do. I'm no expert and I'm sure you have more experience at this than I have, but as both points are in the same sentence I don't see the need. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be challenged should be referenced. It's not unusual to see multiple references in the same sentence, let alone one in successive sentences. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just curious. You learn something new everyday. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FWD Jbamberwiki90

In response to your message on my talk page:

Jbamberwiki90

Looks like he's uploaded quite a few images, claiming they are his own. Must I tag them all, or are you able to bypass that process? - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend listing all of them on WP:PUI. — Athaenara ✉ 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Danny Mitchley

As you may recall I've got a sandbox page ready for young Danny Mitchley. He was on the bench for tonights match (just got home after a nail-biting finish where Coid and Rachubka conspired to gift them their 2nd goal!), but he didn't get on the pitch. Am I correct in that he still therefore doesn't get a wikipedia page yet? I'm sure had the score remained 3-1 Grayson would have brought him on at the end but it wasn't to be! Am I right? thanks--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Great to see the lad make his debut today, even though it came about due to all the striker injuries, just thought you'd like to know though, his first touch came not long after he came on, with a pass trough to him in the Palace penalty box, and had he trapped the ball he would have been through on goal, which would have been some debut to say the least. Could have won today in the end, though in all honesty it would have been undeserved as Palace were the better team IMO, but still unbeaten in seven so all's good!. Thanks for cleaning the article up, --♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric Sibley

There used to be Lytham St Annes FC who merged with what is now A.F.C. Blackpool in 2005. LSA played in the West Lancashire League. In fact I'm pretty sure that they only ever played at that level. There is now a new Lytham Town FC in the WLL but they are a new club. Unfortunately though I can't find anything about Eric Sibley, but LSA FC were the only club based in the twin-towns of Lytham and St Annes, though there are junior clubs such as LSA YMCA and St Annes FC who only seem to have age-group teams. And the WLL doesn't have an official website so there is nothing to check as far as the league is concerned. Not much help I know, sorry!--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of one-club men

The title of the article is pretty self explanatory. Don't see how anyone could misinterperate. Based on that, I see it as pure vandalism. Lol, one-man effort. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Sears

Might be true, for all I know, but just a touch POV for my taste... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

So someone who searches for the band "Phenom" types it into the search box, which automagically shows him a list of choices, one of the first few is Phenom (band) - he selects that, and off he goes - to the wrong article. No way for him to know that there is another one called Phenom (rock group), which is the one he was actually looking for. And it is unlikely he will perform another search, so the disambiguation page is not obvious to him.

The "rule" you quoted may have been relevant in the past, but is certainly not now, where the search box uses Ajax and suggestions.

If nothing else, I would restore the hatnotes to these two articles. And in general, I would have just kept the hatnotes where I put them, because they encourage exploration.

Achitnis (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The "brief description" is there *now* because I put it there to counter the impact of what you have done. There are two musical groups with the same name, the AJAX search leads potentially leads you to the wrong one, and you will not allow a hatnote that could mitigate this? Would you kindly think before showing such inflexibility? The snide "back button" comment doesn't help either - go back to *where*? He never reached the disambiguation page (thanks to your removing the road signs) - he picked the choices given to him by the search box! Achitnis (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Runner-up

Good to see you remove those from the Zidane article. It got me thinking that including runners-up is ultimately pointless because it's not an actual award, so I've since done likewise to a whole bunch of other footballer articles as well. sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the Ronaldo? If so, I've just completed that section. It was pretty ugly, all right ("Cruzeiro Bello Horionte"? *cringes*). sixtynine ^{• speak, I say •} 05:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting 11 on Forest Current Season

Where did the Starting 11 section go on the Nottingham Forest F.C. season 2008-09 page? Other teams have it on their's so why not here? ForestFan1865 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC) ForestFan1865

Shmoop Links

Hi Dudesleeper, I saw that you have reverted a number of my edits and would like to invite a polite discussion on this matter. As you can see from other discussions on my Talk page, Szero (who is in no way associated with Shmoop) would argue that the Shmoop links abide by the guidelines for external links. A number of other silent editors likely agree, as almost all of my article edits remained in tact (and in cases where someone removed them, they brought it up on my Talk page or moved it to the article Talk page - I'm happy to have those discussions. I would appreciate your feedback on how I could do a better job of adhering to the External Links guidelines if you think that I haven't done so. Shmoop is a passion project of people who care deeply about these subjects. Most of our writers are Stanford and Berekely Ph.D. and Masters stduents, and most of them teach these subjects to Stanford and Berkeley undergrads. We have 100-150 pages worth of original analysis on each subject, so it's safe to say that we're bringing new info to the table. We also provide trivia questions, study questions for students and teachers, links to other websites, photos, video, historical documents, etc. Lastly, we write our content in a uniquely human and accessible voice (and we make pop culture references) in order to hit students (many of whom sadly don't read) on a more visceral level. We're trying to make learning fun and relevant again for these students.

We believe we're bringing something new and valuable to the table on these topics. I welcome your input on how I can better adhere to the External Links guidelines. Thanks for your time. Barriodude (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing of key team mates

Hi Dudesleeper,

I know we have touched on this discussion before.

I wonder if you might be a good fellow and spare me a moment to articulate why you think key team mates are irrelevant to a feature on a footballer? I am well aware that with my limitations and increasingly advancing years (ie getting slower and slower, slower than many would have believed possible) every time I step on to the football field I am more dependent on my team mates than most. However the same applies even to those who pay at the top level. It is a team game and teams either win, lose or draw together. Can I thus suggest that listing a player's key team mates is non an irrelevance and that shouldn't be removed from a feature?

I welcome your opinion and hope you can spare a moment to offer it.

Regards Socheid (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dudesleeper,

Thanks for your speedy reply

Can we resurrect that discussion? I agree with the point that it adds context to a player's career. Also as I touched on before I respectfully believe that it would be myopic to neglect to observe the fact the football is a team game. The example people seem to quote most often that I am aware of being the closest to one man winning a competition single handedly is Diego Maradona at Mexico 86. While Maradona did give a peerless display of speed, skills, strength, touch vision and balance (have you noticed how difficult it was then to knock him off the ball? Astonishing), it would be remiss to suggest he did indeed win the tournament by himself. Throughout the competition he was supported by a solid defence. Also in the final Argentina would not have troubled the score keeper without Brown, Valdano and Burruchagga (sp) in the side.

Again I welcome your comment.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,

Please pardon me but how would I do that? Socheid (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Scotland trip to the World Cup in 1954

Hi again,

No doubt you are aware of at least some of this.

• Each squad was invited to bring 22 players. The Scottish FA elected to travel only with 13. The Scottish FA however did make sure that all of the Scottish FA Executive travelled to the game and also brought their wives. One of the players who travelled did so despite having injury concerns

• Players were not provided with training equipment but instead told to bring their own

• No private and professional training facilites were secured. Training took place in public parks

• Players were not provided with kit appropriate to the heat of Central European Summer. Instead of the lightweight shirts used by other teams the Scots were given the same thick and heavy cotton jerseys that would play with at home on a Winter's night at Hampden Park. Also with the rest of the world moving to light weight boots cut off below the ankle, the Scottish players were still playing in heavy boots that came above the ankle

• Manager Andy Beattie decided that he had enough and resigned hours before the Uruguay game from his frustrations at the inept bumbling of the SFA committee. Someone clearly thought he was justified in doing so as he was offered the position again in the future

You do not believe that this adds up to ill preparation?

Can I also a brief description from the SFA website on this tournament

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?curpageid=399&colour=home

Regards, Socheid (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,

If I may be allowed to reply:-

1) You are suggesting the SFA are showing bias by admitting their own incompetence? Surely if anything their personal bias will lead them to understate their own ineptitude?

2) Your point about stating 'facts'; then we get into a philosophical discussion about what a 'fact' is. The only qualified philosopher I know once gave me a definition of a fact as something like (please pardon me if I don't quote this exactly to the letter but it was very close to) 'something widely perceived as truth'. People can argue black is white - in the end it just comes down to opinion. Of course this doesn't make him the world's leading authority on the subject but the point he raised is an interesting one. This is how lawyers clean up a fortune with stuff such as this.

3) Why is it that you have an issue that the 1954 Scotland campaign was not ill managed? It is widely documented as such and no one seems to have documented an opinion saying that it was well managed.

4) Also why is describing the ill management of the 1954 Scotland World Cup pro Scottish bias? You think that it is pro Scottish to highlight the bumbling decision making of Scots in high office?

5) Can I also repsectfully suggest that the tone of your last update is inappropriate and disappointing? When I read it suggests that you feel you are superior and above reasoned debate and discussion and is hardly constructive. Further as what seems to be a committed and experienced wikipedier this sets a bad example to others. Can I also respectfully suggest that perhaps you should have a think about your actions before you go undoing other people's work and consider what you are doing 1st? The speed with which you delete things suggest your actions are based on spontaneous decisions and not thought through, never the best strategy I hope you agree?

Regards, Socheid (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest we take this discussion to a forum where we can invite others to give their opinions? In this regard I have updated the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_national_football_team#1950s_and_1960s

Numerous sources of information have been used and all are cited. It wasn't difficult to find the ones I used and I am sure plenty more could be obtained if you feel that appropriate? If you are happy with this suggestion I would like to invites comments on the content of this feature via the discussion page for this Scotland National team

Best regards as always, Socheid (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,

Link updated below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_national_football_team#1950s

Regards, Socheid (talk)

Tennis expert

I've been accused of lying and trash-talking him, after my conciliatory posting this morning on his talk page; he scrubbed it immediately from his talk page.

I'm a little nervous of him. Tony (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Blackpool FC

I've add a new discussion on the Blackpool FC page.

I would be very grateful if you may be able to spare a moment to take a look and offer your input. Any assistance is much appreciated.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied here.

Discusssion at Queen of the South FC

Hi again Dudesleeper,

I have also started a discussion on the Queen of the South discussion page also. Again if you may be able to spare a moment to take a look and even better, contribute, that would be much appreciated.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of your articles

Hi again Dudesleeper,

I am conscious that from the number of amendments that you make to wikipedia contributions that I've offered that you don't seem to have a high opinion of my input. I am aware that I am relative newcomer and from your profile clearly you are significantly more experienced in wikipedia than I. I started taking a look at some of your articles with a view to using these as example material. I quickly found what seemed to be an error (based on the comments you've made to accompany the amendments you've made to my writings), then another, then another, then another... I started correcting these and then found that there were so many that this was taking up a lot of my time.

Can you help me out please as I am now confused from your writing? Am I correct to read that there is a discrepancy between the critique that you have made on my writing and the writing that you have made to your own articles?

Any help much appreciated.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied here.

St Cuthbert's Church

No problem at all, it's nice to see my photos being used. :) I actually have some much better photos of the church on my laptop, which I must get around to uploading. Regards. Small-town hero (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The The

sorry - I misread the edit summary! Sensei48 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blackpool FC Youth Department & Centre of Excellence

Woul you have a look at this for me - User:Tangerines/sandbox4, where I have created what could be the start of an article for the Youth Dep't & Centre of Excellence. I'm not sure about the guidelines for this, just it seems notable enough to have it's own article? Thanks.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SK Schwadorf

Couldn't find an updated version of that page but I've used the archive link from the Internet Wayback Machine in the article in the citation now, which should suffice. Hope that helps. Qwghlm (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't know how to add a picture.

I like added it a second agho, it dont make sense all those things. I wanted to put my john wayne picture on the page but it's confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightJohnWayne (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen of the South F.C.

You deleted the list of matches against other nations' teams.I think the list is not important, many teams I have never heard...--JackyCheung (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalmine

I've added some sourced content, and had to re-jig the images about. It doesn't look 100% correct as I've temporarily removed the gallery section. By all means move stuff around.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Parent categories

Sorry...I thought that the television actors category was different to soap opera actors because television actors implies that you are more than just a soap opera actor. For example, Gold Logie winners is also a subcategory of television actors, but you can be a gold logie winner and not an actor. Please correct me if i'm wrong. And thank you for notifying me.

p.s this is in regard to the Australian actors categories. Tweety bui (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

official website links

I am adding official website links that are not spam and yet I received one message that alludes to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Heayberd (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Make that two, and the second is from someone else. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I avoid being incorrectly accused of 'spamming' when I am in fact adding the official website URL? - Adam Heayberd (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam HeayberdAdam Heayberd (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How is iviva.com a person's official website? - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All due respect - have you looked at iViva? It is a collective website for the artists that are represented by the same management. It has been requested that the URL iViva is used and not the various individual sites that point as some direct to the managemnet teams website. Granted various individual websites are not up and running, I am only doing something that was asked of me by the management team so it avoided people placing unofficial websites up or their myspace pages etc. - Adam Heayberd (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam HeayberdAdam Heayberd (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you don't. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Then please explain why? - Adam Heayberd (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam HeayberdAdam Heayberd (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of reasons in the help pages. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, as I see from your history you are an honest editor, I feel that I will have to report you and the incidents by which you have removed the official websites from the artists pages that I recently edited. If you are bothering to look at the websites I am putting up, you will see that they are official and setup by the management company who represent them. Your actions are not justified. Regards Adam Heayberd (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam Heayberd

Consider it reported. Dudesleeper, I see where you're going here - but this attitude towards newer editors stops now, okay? "There's plenty of reasons in the help pages"? C'mon. This guy obviously is trying to conform to policy here. Now the problem is Adam's motivation, which isn't to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but apparently (by his own admission) he has been directed by "management" to place these links here, which creates a conflict of interest and is heavily promotional. Tan | 39 15:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Unpopular Opinion's talk page:

How about waiting until the celebrities' websites are actually fully created (if they actually will be)? At this point, it just looks like you're promoting Iviva. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that point, however, Ant and Decs official website has gone live and those that have official holding pages will be following suit shortly. Please understand that I am not a spammer and trying to do an honest edit as the interest to place the official site on the artists wiki site is to ensure that they are not misrepresented. Adam Heayberd (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam Heayberd

That's fine, so do you agree you should wait until the other sites go live? After all, a link to an under-construction "official" site doesn't do the management any favours, in my opinion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point. I am not sure if it makes too much of a difference. Im just glad you dont see me as a persistent spammer! i felt awful and would hate to be tagged like that!! Adam Heayberd (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam Heayberd

Thanks for your understanding. Apologies for the confusion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

BFC stats

Hi, indeed definite discrepancies! I speak to one of the fans who runs the Blackpool Programme and Memorabilia Club that publishes all the latest 'Pool related books including "The Khaki Years" by Gerry Wolstenholme. I will have a word with him and see what they say, as Gerry Wolstenholme has access to a lot of historical club records and the club themselves call him the "club historian". Every game in the war years is listed in "The Khaki Years" with detailed statistics inlcuding the full team for every match.

It has Harold Keenan playing (with the no. 5 shirt) for the first eleven games of the Principal Competition in 1917-18, then missing the 12th match against Southport Central on 17th November 1917, then being an ever present until match 27 on 9th March 1918 which he missed against Blackburn Rovers. It has him then returning for the following game on 16th March when he played at no. 9 against Manchester City, before reverting back to no. 5 for the last two games of the Principal Competition. A total of 28 apperances, with him having missed two games. Then for the Subsidiary Competition it has him playing all six games, making a total for both competitions of 34.

For Dunn it is the same detailed stats that lists him having played 27 games (with the no. 3 shirt) in the Principal Competition, missing just three matches (16 & 17 against Burnley on 25th December and Rochdale on 29th December, then missing the match 24 against Preston on 16th February). Then playing five games in the Subsidiary Competition for a total of 32.

Jack Connor is listed in 23 Principal Competition matches and all six Subsidiary Competition matches for a total of 29.

I'll ask though and let you know ASAP.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a large scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake: you should have posted this on your own talk page, since I haven't received a block for my editing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If I was to partake in the discussion, I think I will just agree with the person whose comment is directly above the one I'm making, and note make any point of my own. That seems to be the norm... - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossthwaite

is how both my cited sources spell him. It does say on the category pages that "This list may sometimes be slightly out of date". Perhaps Wikipedia's definition differs slightly from yours... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronaldo

Hi. About your revert, please note the controversy is receiving highly publicity at the moment and even Daily Mail reported the situation. --201.78.12.203 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce on Association Football Variants

NewTestLeper79, we would like you to become a member of the Football Variants Taskforce of WikiProject Football.

Hello NewTestLeper79, it is nice to meet you. I came across your page when I went through the list of people who had edited articles in this category about Football variants, and I wondered if you were intrested in joining a new taskforce that covers this category, as we are looking for members. Thank you for your time - DeMoN2009

Jonathon Dutton

Yes, my mistake. Did it at work whilst tired. Should have checked. (Quentin X (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Notability of Hib-Tone

A tag has been placed on Hib-Tone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

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

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Schuym1 (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I know it was naughty, but when using my 'out and about' account I get particularly annoyed to wade through pages of petty changes. Glad it amused you. Cheshire Boy (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of footballers.Leightonmowbray (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Why are you pulling down my pictures of J Armfield, T Alcock etc? Don’t you like pictures? I think they look good! Give us a break man! We’re all entitled to contribute on this forum!

Leighton Mowbray

Replied here.