User talk:Jameboy

Ronnie Wallwork

Hiya. I just wanted to say that this edit summary made me chuckle. I wish I could help all our players find their scoring form!! Peanut4 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made some very slight changes. I'm pretty confident it will pass GA. My only suggestion would be whether it's worth adding his FA Youth Cup win and POTS award at West Brom in the honours section? Peanut4 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put the last part of your comment in my edit summary, but didn't think it was quite the place!! I totally agree though with your remark. Good luck with the GA nomination, though I can't see there being any problems, apart from probably having to wait a couple of weeks for a review. Peanut4 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I'm extremely grateful. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Couldn't agree more about the bot, in fact I was going to bring it up at WT:FOOTY. I started going through all of the season articles but got bored after 7 or 8, so now I'm just moving any that I stumble across whilst editing other articles. :-)

By the way, I bought the two books that you recommended a while ago at the weekend and I have to say that they are both excellent. Thanks for the advice! Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry that I couldn't help out more with Ronnie Wallwork, but unfortunately his time at Hillsborough was pretty uneventful, I'm afraid to say. I didn't think that there was a lot that I could add. It should sail through WP:GAN though, you've done a cracking job on the article. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Football infobox stats

Aaahhh, thanks. Sorry about that. I'll go back and clean up. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott Carson

Hi, thanks for the message. I've been working up a lead in a sandbox, which is a little wordier than yours. I'll add it later today (I have just realised what the time is!) then the article can go for peer review, if that's OK. Regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jameboy. I think I've done everything I want to do with this article. Would you like to go ahead and put it up for peer review? Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been a bit preoccupied on another page but should be able chip in on Scott Carson as well. Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

You're very kind. Thought your cast-off Phillips looked quite promising yesterday :-))) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon Wormull

Thanks... Funny really, I had no intention of writing this one at all. Did his teammate Jean-Michel Sigere for purely personal reasons - when he was at Lewes he did some coaching at local primary schools as part of their community programme and one of the kids he coached was a member of my family - and Wormull's career overlapped so much with Sigere's that it seemed sensible not to waste the research. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Following on from that, what do you think Simon Wormull needs doing to get it to GA? I've no experience of the process, so do you think I should just submit it and see what happens, or are there any obvious deficiencies you could point out before I do? any advice gratefully received, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If only I knew... One piece I read mentioned "businesses", but no indication of what sort. Will have another search if and when I can be spared from decorating duties. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your copyright question

Hi. I'm processing tickets at the Wikipedia copyrights problem board. Problems listed on August 9th have just become open for administrator closure. I saw your note there about Image:ChrisPowell.jpg and how, presuming good faith, the contributor could prove permission. I've left him a note at his talk page explaining how but wanted to also let you know for your future use that permission is verified by one of the processes at WP:Permission. Most commonly, the copyright owner will provide a written release from an e-mail associated with the site which is then forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation's Communication Committee. This release must include very specific language to ensure that the copyright holder knows that the material may be changed or published elsewhere, even commercially. Sometimes, alternatively, a release statement is placed at the website. Again, the license of the release has to allow proper reuse.

At this point it looks like images will no longer be listed at WP:CP, so this may never be a problem you face again. But in case images continue being listed there, I also wanted to let you know that quite often nobody reads those reports until they come due 7 days after they are listed. If you want a quick response about media and copyright, the best place I know to get it is WP:MCQ.

Thanks for discovering that problem and helping to address it. We'll have to wait and see if permission can be verified. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sister clubs heading on Template:Sheffield United F.C.

Thanks for the offer. As a whole there isn't any animosity between members of the two projects (as far as I am aware!), the SUFC project was actually inspired by (read copied from) the SWFC one anyway. I have actually added the same comment to the SUFC WikiProject talk page but have not received a reply as yet. Maybe you could add a note there too? — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dean Windass

I just noticed your edit summary at Dean Windass, regarding B / C class. It's my aim at one point to push this towards GA. I suppose I should have done it before he got back into the Premier League, but I guess your edit summary might give me another kick to do so. ;-) Peanut4 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed your assessments, on perhaps only the tip of the iceberg. I've been very impressed. I tried to start doing a few a while back but it's a tough, at times tedious job, which makes me even more impressed by your targets. I also noticed the shortcut; I wasn't sure how these things work but I doubt anyone is going to complain about it nor would conflict with another similar shortcut. It would be good to give the page a bit of an overhaul, as per your comments the other day. I've also been thinking about giving the main page a spring clean, and perhaps even starting a newsletter to try increase participation at the higher-value end, e.g. good articles and featured work. Peanut4 (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the upgrade, made my day. Beve (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:EFTF

I've just been stalking you on Peanut's talk page :-) and noticed that you've set up the above shortcut. I've looked in to it before and I don't think you need any permission or consensus to set up a shortcut as long as it's not already in use, but it should be listed at Wikipedia:List of shortcuts/Project shortcuts. Not sure where you would put it (i.e. under F or E); probably as a sub-listing of WP:FOOTY? — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 07:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the list of shortcuts. Seems task forces are grouped along with their parent project. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bradford City 2007-08

I wasn't a fan of the season-by-season articles, but finally decided "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and decided to do it fully and correctly. Though the thoroughness of doing so, means it might be difficult to go back and add all the past ones in!!! As for the table, it was my intention to highlight the Bradford row, both with a colour and a note or bolding (for WP:ACCESSIBILITY) but I couldn't fathom out how to do it. Have you any ideas? Peanut4 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield Rules quality rating

As far as I am aware the A-class review is a relatively new thing, brought in at the same time as the new C-class rating in July this year [1]. The article was originally assessed as A-class in February, hence the lack of review.

If you feel that it doesn't meet A-class standard (I don't see why it wouldn't as it has been through a peer review and only failed FA because of a lack of interest in the nomination rather than any objections) then leave it as GA-class, but otherwise I would keep it as A-class. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)