User talk:Tomoli/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Welcome!

Welcome, Tomlock01!

I noticed your work on Liverpool F.C., and thought I'd welcome you to Wikipedia. I'm Ged, and I've been editing here for quite a while. Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like our encyclopedia project and decide to stay!

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Some other hints and tips:

Since you have created a username, you have the privilege of customizing your own user page, which is here.
When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date.
If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! -- Ged UK 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.

Hey man, fantastic work on improving that article. I wish I had the free time to focus on doing it myself, but it's nice that a neutral third party can come in and prune whether others wouldn't dare to tread. Just so you know, if you need help with content for the "Ownership" section, you should have a look at my subpage on the subject. It's not done yet, but there's plenty of info there about the ownership model in the club's early years up to Louis Edwards. I haven't sourced it completely (or at all) yet either, but I do have the sources available if you need me to look something up. A list of the books that I (and other users) have available is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist. – Pee Jay 21:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. By the way, in case you were wondering why I restored the bit about the club moving to Bank Street in the "Early years" section, I basically felt that the move to Bank Street was part of the process of separation from the railway company. Therefore, to leave that bit out from the early section felt like leaving out an important aspect of the transition. I hope you understand. – Pee Jay 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order, I suppose. The contributing authors are listed as Bostock, Pilger, Butler, Mitten, Meek, Taylor, Barnes, Tyrrell and Ferguson on the inside flap of my copy, but I couldn't see any reason for them to be listed in that order, so I reordered them alphabetically and Barnes' name came first. – Pee Jay 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the page numbers have been the same so far, but I can't be sure that they'll continue to be the same. I suppose we could continue to use the 2nd edition as the reference until referencing is complete, and then I'll go through them all to check the page numbers against the 3rd edition. How does that sound? – Pee Jay 07:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the article looks pretty complete now. If we can polish some of the prose then I think we're close to being able to nominate the article as an FA. – Pee Jay 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good mate. Go right ahead with the nomination. Btw, did you have any comments about the start I've made on the "Ownership of MUFC" article? – Pee Jay 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. I've nominated it. Ownership article looks pretty good to me so far, are you going to merge it with the Glazer article, or keep them as separate articles? Tomlock01 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

GAN

I have reviewed the article, and have left comments here. There are still large areas of the article, particularly in the early sections, which are completely uncited, and this really needs to be rectified before it becomes a GA. Jhbuk (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind

I did a bit of copyediting, I hope it's ok, revert if it's not appropriate. I can do some more if you like.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to say before I start, there are lots of long winded sentences, repetition etc.... I won't change anything to alter the citation though. --J3Mrs (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Tell me if I change the meaning. --J3Mrs (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

looks like someone else likes long winded so I'll do something else Cheers--J3Mrs (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't like long-winded, so you come right back here and get stuck in J3Mrs. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made some comments on my talk page. Jhbuk (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I really like this edit [1], just what's needed.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's getting there, slowly, 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Keep snipping. I can't look at the sponsors section, its far too convoluted and ......... well. --J3Mrs (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a look at the article, but I'm pretty busy this week, and it may be more than a few days before I have time. If you don't hear from me by Saturday the 24th, could you drop me a reminder? (I noticed a comment on the article talk page about leaving the peer review open for a week being "a long time", but I doubt I'll be able to get to it before then.) Scartol • Tok 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite a lie I told you there.. Two months later, I'm ready to get started. Thanks for waiting, and sorry for the insane delay! I should have a review up by the end of the week. (If you don't hear from me by Sunday 20 June, drop me a reminder!) Cheers! Scartol • Tok 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder.. I've had a rough couple of days. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Thanks for your patience. Scartol • Tok 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whew! I finally finished my peer review. I hope it's useful! Apologies once again for taking so long. Scartol • Tok 21:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Manchester United articles

I don't have any problem with that. If you make any changes that significantly change the meaning of a passage, please don't be offended if I make some minor corrections, but please be bold and make whatever changes you deem necessary. – Pee Jay 23:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

MUFC

Alright there pal,

I'd be delighted to review it, but please give me until tomorrow morning. Here in Zimbabwe I only have internet at work, so I can't do it in my spare time; but I always go in a bit early to check emails, English papers and so on, so I'll do it then. Expect something about 6–7 am English time.

Re: Zimbabwe? I'll be honest with you, mate – I decided when I was 18 that I was going to emigrate and nowhere else would take me! I'm very happy with how it's panned out, though. It's a beautiful, laid-back country, nothing like you'd imagine and a world away from the frenzied war-zone you see on the BBC news. Visit sometime. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

'Til tomorrow then mate. *Sigh*, back to work... – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just got into the office to find MUFC's FAC has been turned down before I had a chance to contribute: darn. Oh well; keep well and let me know the next time it's nominated and I'll be happy to help out. For now, here are some quick tips from a swift scan-reading:

Throughout you refer to "Newton Heath LYR F.C.". I'd expand any usages like this to "Newton Heath LYR Football Club" initially, and shorten the rest simply to "Newton Heath LYR" or even "Newton Heath".
The club history section still suffers heavily from recentism: however, from first glance it appears that this is due to a lack of early information rather than a plethora of later information (though the most recent section could certainly do with a trim). Have a flick through History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1945) and pick out some extra points. Presently, in the parent article, the club history jumps erratically from 1878 to 1892 to 1902, then smooths to 1911 before skipping again to 1922 within the first three paragraphs. There are also a number of stubby paragraphs and sentences that could be reworked. Have a quick look at my Luton Town article's approach to the early history of the club. I would even attempt to split the early history section into two, and have each section the same length as the present one. Combined with some cutting down of the more recent information and a thorough copy-edit (I'd recommend Casliber for this), this should make the history section adequate for FA.
Grounds: "19 Frebruary 1909"?!?!?!?!??!?
The grounds section also suffers from a great deal of recentism: see my points above. Of course, some will have to remain as more has probably changed at Old Trafford since 1993 than at any other time during its history, but it still looks very lop-sided and unbalanced. Work is required.
"Beckham's popularity across Asia has been integral to the club's commercial success in that part of the world." Er, Becks don't play for MUFC no more china. Try "During his time with Manchester United, Beckham's popularity across Asia was integral to the club's commercial success in that part of the world."
The players section is very long and hard to navigate. I would split everything here below "Former players" into other articles and lists:
1. I would put "Club captains" into a list called "List of Manchester United F.C. captains" and link to it.
2. The entire "player records" section is superfluous here. I would link to List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and put a short section entitled "Records and statistics" here detailing player statistics as well as club records and so on. See Luton Town F.C. for an example of what I mean. It flows a lot better, don't you think? Not so tiresome and listy.
"Club officials" – "Manchester United football club"? Try "Manchester United Football Club".
Under "managerial history" add a column with the nationality in words: "English", "Scottish", etc. See Luton Town F.C..
"Honours" is fine.

I'll be more detailed another time, but I've got to get to work I'm afraid!

God bless. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 06:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Managed to completely miss the FAC. While it failed, it looks like it gave you plenty to get your teeth into. I see you've opened another peer review, I'll make sure to comment there. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just give me a ping when the next FAC comes up and I'll be back for more. Have a good 'un pal – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 06:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

MUFC references

Fair enough, but I do believe that Brianboulton is wrong on this. The work is "BBC Sport" or "BBC News", and the publisher is the British Broadcasting Corporation, just as - for a story in The Guardian, for example - the work would be "The Guardian" and the publisher would be Guardian Media Group. – Pee Jay 21:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd better have a chat with Brianboulton then. – Pee Jay 21:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but I do think it is necessary to state both the work and the publisher, even if it is a little repetitive. – Pee Jay 23:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of ManUtd.com, that is the name of the work, whereas the work for the BBC sources is "BBC Sport" or "BBC News". – Pee Jay 23:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

work refers to the publication that the page appears in, which in the case of the BBC sites is the department of the BBC that produced the article. ManUtd.com is a publication of Manchester United, hence why that appears in the work field. – Pee Jay 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right that ManUtd.com is referred to as such in the titlebar, but if you look at the top of the homepage, you'll see that it says "ManUtd.com - The Official Website". – Pee Jay 23:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because it should be "premierleague.com". – Pee Jay 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen "premierleague.com" written on the Premier League website as the proper name for that publication. If not that, then "Premier League website" may be appropriate, although that would look a little daft. I think we have to be practical about this, but also think about what looks right. Maybe you're right about leaving out "British Broadcasting Corporation" from the publisher field. – Pee Jay 23:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine mate. It might take me a while to get used to writing refs that way in the future, so you may need to give me a little leeway if I forget. – Pee Jay 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to co-nom. I've got a little more time on my hands now, so I'll do the best I can. – Pee Jay 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Doffing my hat

I take my hat off to you for what you've managed to do with the MUFC article – well, I would do if I actually had a hat. That Global brand section is exactly what was needed. I begin to think this may now stand a pretty good chance at its next FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. (again)

I've had a look through this article again, but there's still confusion over the discretionary plural. The discretion is whether to consider "Manchester United" plural or singular in the entire article, not each time they're mentioned. For instance, the Support section begins "Manchester United is reputed to be" (singular), whereas the very next section starts off with "Manchester United have major ongoing rivalries" (plural).

You asked me specifically though to take a look at the lead, which to be honest I think is rather dreadful. Not sure what to suggest really, other than a complete rewrite. For instance: "The appointment of Matt Busby in 1945 led to league and cup victories in the 1950s, the youthful team nicknamed the Busby Babes" doesn't even make sense. I'd rewrite it myself, but past experience tells me that it would only lead to acrimony. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead is generally fine now, but you need to add a paragraph about global branding. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. kits

The idea is definitely still in the back of my mind, but I'm kinda busy with other things at the minute. I'm hoping to get User:Decorativeedison's help with it, since he set up the site UnitedKits.com, but I think he's probably a little busy with that site for the time being. – Pee Jay 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, mate. I had actually planned to do a lot of work on those History articles myself, but I've never had the time, so kudos to you for it. I would try to write some stuff for it, but I fear we would just end up with edit conflicts all over the place. And no, the plan for the Manchester United F.C. in Europe article was always to keep it as a standalone article. Manchester United F.C. in the FA Cup or Manchester United F.C. in the Football League Cup would just be overkill, IMO. – Pee Jay 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Harpurhey

Hi Tom, I don't have a ref. Ask PeeJay as it was him who found the reference in that book. Back Page United (Stephen F. Kelly, 1994, ISBN: 1852914436, page 21) states it was a reserve match too, but it does not specify the opposition. Decorativeedison (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The pages in The Definitive Newton Heath F.C. (Shury and Landamore, 2005) are 33-34. – Pee Jay 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: New MU Kit

The socks are not listed as being black-and-red, they are listed as black. – Pee Jay 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with re-nominating it for FAC. I assume you're satisfied that it's been properly Peer Reviewed? – Pee Jay 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me then. Obviously, since FA status does not mean that an article is considered "perfect", there may be things that will need changing or updating after FA status is granted, so I'll remain vigilant and look out for anything I think needs adding. I'll start off the nomination if you like. – Pee Jay 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Tom (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Manchester United F.C.

In my opinion FAs must be well-referenced and every information must be sourced, not only any material challenged or likely to be challenged. But it's only my personal opinion. PS. (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I also thanks for work with that article. Although I'm a fan of City, in the next days I will translate that into Polish. Manchester United should be Featured Article in every Wikipedia. PS. (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris Smalling

Perhaps it should be removed then, but he was wearing it against Celtic, so at the moment he is number 12.

But then again, I've heard that Chris Eagles wore 19 for Man U before changing to 33, so nothing is guaranteed at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAPERSONNCC (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season

I'm not sure the results summary table you added to this article is particularly appropriate. I mean, we've never used such a table before, but that may just be because no one thought of it before. Still, something about it doesn't sit right with me. – Pee Jay 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably because of the paucity of the matches played. However, I do think we should either have this sort of table on all season articles or none. To be honest, I'm leaning towards none. – Pee Jay 13:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had a thought. How about we add an overall results table to the List of Manchester United F.C. seasons? Or even the List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics? – Pee Jay 14:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea if you think that would be a good idea. I'm happy to do it, may need a hand with the formatting if it doesn't turn out right though. Where do you think it would go best, or on both? Tom (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would probably sit fine on either article, so why not put it on both :) – Pee Jay 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United featured topic

Can I assume that we are attempting to create a Manchester United featured topic? If so, I think we should probably focus on the History of Manchester United articles next. – Pee Jay 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, mate! And it's definitely looking like being more of a case of "when" than "if"! – Pee Jay 21:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see that it's particularly relevant either, as we do have a valid Fair Use rationale for the image anyway, but if we can do away with the need for that Fair Use rationale, then I'm all for it! – Pee Jay 22:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:FAC, all an article needs for it to be promoted is consensus that it meets the featured article criteria, but nominations usually last a couple of weeks so that everyone is given a chance to comment. I have no doubt that the article will pass though. You've done a great job. – Pee Jay 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can try, but I really don't have much time for the synthesis of new material these days. I can just about manage to look over other people's work and lend the odd helping hand, but work is really important to me at the minute, so you can imagine that my mind is mostly elsewhere right now. Sorry. – Pee Jay 22:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It can, but I prefer to do it by dovetailing the two articles together. Obviously one could copy-and-paste a lot of the material, but it takes a little work not to make it look like that's what's happened. – Pee Jay 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1968 Intercontinental Cup

It took damn near 8 hours of shortening the video without destroying it (WMM can't handle jack squat). But in 20 minutes I will start uploading the match on my youtube channel (which, in turn, will be used as a historical document of the event). Very well within the borders of being a prime source. When you do start watching it, don't let the "Animal!" chant at the beginning hit you on the ass...and much less the biased English commentary. The match was nowhere as violent as the English so put it (there are games today that puts this second leg of the IC to shame in terms of violence). Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The first part of the video is up on the IC68 page. That British commentator sounded like he wanted to commit suicide after Veron's goal lol the other parts will soon follow. Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To show how disgustingly the British became because they lost and exaggarated wildly the events of the match, claiming that Estudiantes were acting like a bunch of thugs when it was the neanderthals from Manchester confusing boxing with football. In short, a bunch of sore losers who went out to destroy what could have been a great competition.

The destruction of the IC was also used as a smokescreen to block what was a still-talked about 1966 FIFA World Cup, which easily goes into the category of the ugliest World Cups ever (along with 1934, 1990 and 2010).

YouTube did some weird crap on me so the parts are being uploaded at random. Part 6 is up and another will be done in 8 mintues. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Part 3 is up. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Part 4 is done. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Part 2 is finally done (that took hours to make it compatible with my computer). Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Part 5 is up for viewing. Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jamen has obviously never seen the first leg! According to the reports I've read, the Estudiantes players were even more dirty than he is making the United team appear! – Pee Jay 22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bank Street (football ground)

To be honest, I think the article is missing a lot in terms of records of the other facilities that Bank Street provided, such as refreshments stands (if any), public toilets, etc. Comparing the article with North Road (football ground), it's also missing a "Records" section, but I could easily add that using Shury & Landamore (2005). I will trawl through my references to see if I can find any further information. You're right that Bank Street should be a Featured Article, especially since the "History" section is far more fleshed-out than that in North Road (football ground), but it's just a matter of finding encyclopaedic content! – Pee Jay 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

MUFC history articles

Woah there, I thought we were merging History of Manchester United F.C. (1986–1998) with History of Manchester United F.C. (1999–present). We weren't supposed to touch History of Manchester United F.C. (1969–1986), since that's the pre-Fergie period. – Pee Jay 15:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I knew you'd realise the mistake eventually. Don't forget to rename the target article when you're done. – Pee Jay 15:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. – Pee Jay 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good. I've done a few of the other links myself. – Pee Jay 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good man! Don't forget to add a small section about the Treble season! By the way, you should add yourself to the list of participants at WP:MUFC! – Pee Jay 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Well done, Tom. You've done it! Manchester United F.C. is now a Featured Article! – Pee Jay 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you deserve it. You put in a lot of hard work! But now we've got an even bigger task: putting together a Featured Topic! – Pee Jay 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Manchester United task force#Manchester United F.C. records and statistics. – Pee Jay 23:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You've done a great job Tom, you should be feeling pleased with the result of your efforts and perseverance. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well - it looked like you were never going to get there, but you stuck at it and got the reward. Big Dom 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats and PR

Congrats on the FAC of Man utd. Since you know what it takes, could you be so kind and offer your help on Wikipedia:Peer review/FC Barcelona/archive2 ? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 09:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Belle Vue

Thanks for your support Tom. I've been struggling with Belle Vue for about as long as you struggled with Manchester United. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

United squad numbers

http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={F9E570E6-407E-44BC-800F-4A3110258114}&newsid=6651365

Norwood isn't given a number here? Lushhhhhhhh (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess so, I doubt he'd play anyway D: Lushhhhhhhh (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

I've had a quick look through, and I'd encourage you to take another careful look at it as well. You know how picky FAC can be, so things like the school sometimes being called "the Judd School" and sometimes "The Judd School" will be picked up. Similarly "Literary and Debating society", which I'm certain would have been called the "Literary and Debating Society". The content looks great, but at FAC presentation is everything. Also, make sure that all your citations are in numerical order, which they aren't at the end of this sentence: "However, when a lack of public transport made day-to-day travel to the school impractical, boys were permitted to lodge from neighbouring villages and would stay at masters' homes or at hostels approved by the governors." Basically, try to look through the article as if your worst enemy had written it, and you're looking for a reason to trash it. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Something else I meant to say earlier. You can't have a section title "World war years: 1914–1945", as we weren't at war for 31 years. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at it but it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Judd School Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Judd School Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hiya Tomlock, you indicated your willingness to do a copyedit, and I wondered if you're still up for the job. The article is FC Barcelona, which just failed FAC (for some reason nominations can't continue to run if progress is being made). However the different section should now have the appropiate size to avoid charges of recentism. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 11:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder (as requested) :) - it got a ce from ResMario, so shouldn't be that bad anymore. Still, extra eyes doesn't hurt. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 20:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's at FAC now, have a go at it (and copyedit if you feel like it) :) Sandman888 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Judd School

Yes, I'd be happy to take a look and weigh in at FAC. I'll try to do that either today or tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Same here. I've not actually reviewed an FAC before but I'm happy to read through it and offer any advice I can. I've just had a quick look and it seems to be ok, but I'll take a more in-depth one a bit later on, probably this evening or tomorrow. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

LFC Copyedit

Hi Tom, I've decided to withdraw Liverpool F.C. from FAC as the nom was premature in hindsight. I noticed you said you would be happy to assist in a copyedit of the article, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take some time to improve the article, I've had a go at making it better, but it could really do with a new set of eyes to be honest. Cheers NapHit (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great, really appreciate having your help. NapHit (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tomoli. You have new messages at Shirik's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Tomoli. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Judd School

Congratulations. Nice to see it promoted. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 14, 2010! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Raul654 schedules the Main Page FAs and I assume he picked it, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchester derby

My considering work on the derby article as a derby approaches is nothing new, I've been meaning to do a proper job of it for years now. However, having now obtained the two long out-of-print books that have been written about the derby, this time I might actually do it. That and its compensation for the fact that I'm unable to attend the next one due to inescapable work commitments, first home one I'll have missed since 1989 :( . Anyway, to get to the point, I'm asking editors of both red and blue hues what they think should go in the article. Naturally, a History section which goes chronologically through the major events of the fixture will be the bulk of it, but what else? A short "non-competitive derbies" section is one thing I'm thinking of putting in. A section on the nature of rivalry between fans and their attitudes to the fixture may have mileage, but I fear it would become a magnet for dubious POV edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)