Wikipedia

User talk:NapHit/Archive 6

< User talk:NapHit
Latest comment: 12 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 19 December 2011
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

WPF1 Newsletter (May)

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.

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners/archive2

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed this nomination and deleted it as it's much easier than archiving a blank nomination; please focus on existing FLCs you've nominated and make sure they stand a chance of passing before nominating new lists. If you need to notify various wikiprojects or interested editors to come and review your existing FLCs, so be it, there's no issue with that as long as you don't canvass for support. Contact me if you'd like to discuss this more. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know, I have nominated Ballon d'Or as a potential candidate to be featured on the main page, as Today's Featured List. The proposed text and image can be seen here. Regards, —WFC— 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Grand Tour winner list

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was about to do a check of the Grand Tour winner list, but I saw it has already been promoted, well done. I corrected two things myself. I didn't have time to check all the names and years in the table, but I trust that you made no mistakes. (A featured lists should be verified for unintentional errors and typos, I think.) Following the Vuelta winner list review, you no longer link to the countries but to the organisations. I started a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cycling#Template_to_replace_flagathlete_for_cyclists|discussion at the Cycling WikiProject about this, and consensus there was that this was not to do this. I'm not saying you should change anything, but only want to make you aware that the Project has thought about this. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes on the list, just read that discussion, from now on I'll link the nationality instead of the organisation per the convincing arguments about riders having affiliations with certain organisations despite being a different nationality. I would change the links back in the other two lists but that is a lot of work which I can't be bothered to do right now! NapHit (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WPF1 Newsletter (June)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 19:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Anfield a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated.

In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to comment on another Featured article candidate... or perhaps review one of the Good Article nominees, as there is currently a backlog. Any help is appreciated! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

LFC Colours and crest

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you want to incorporate various colours then fine, but in a section about Liverpool FC, to not have the colours which the club is world famous for and is predominant throughout its history, in a section that largely deals with the manager and the change in question, any image other than all red is not reflective of the text and is terribly confusing. If there is only one image in a section about Liverpool colours then all red is it.Chryed (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point but to me it seems a bit pointless to have an image of an all red kit two paragraphs below the infobox where there is an all red kit. Not many people will know that Liverpool have not played in red throughout the club's history, that is why I think it should be the old kit. NapHit (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Stanley Park/Damages claim

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reworded part i restored was yours; "Unlike other rivalries, there is no political, geographical or religious split between Liverpool and Everton". The others were mainly unclarified parts i had trimmed for the sake of tidiness (leaving it free to be expanded). As we know the Stanley Park project is still up in the air and nothing is definite on that one. We also don't yet know the conclusion of the damages claim (whether Hicks "sought", or is "seeking" to claim). I had added in the February court ruling which blocked Hicks from suing in the US over the sale of the club.[1] MusoForde (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WPF1 Newsletter (July)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 01:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template: Football season start help

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I see that you have changed the template and made it better (for Slovenian clubs). I am guessing that you are the author (you made it)? Well done. I would, however, ask you for a small favour regarding the template when SVN (Slovenia) is used. Could you change two small things in the head of the template (like you did with "League cup" -> "Slovenian Supercup")? I would like if its possible, that you change "Pokal Hervis" into simply "Cup" for the Slovenian Cup. The reason why is that Pokal Hervis is a sponsorship name of the cup, however, the name is used only for the last couple of seasons and was not used during the 1990s. So I think it would be better that the section would just be named the "Cup" (or "Slovenian Cup" in the worst case), since the name could change in the future due to sponsorship rights. Also, I think instead of "Slovenian Supercup" it would be better if the name in the head section would just be the "Supercup". Personally, I believe that there is no need for "Slovenian" before Cup and Supercup. Anyway, the latter isnt that important, but I believe that the Cup name in the head should change. Anyway, thanks for your help and I will probably use the template for all Slovenian teams currently playing in the top division.Ratipok (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your help. I have figured it out on how to edit the template and have added former SFR Yugoslavia (YUG) there. I do have a question though. Is it possible to simply remove the second cup (in this case "League Cup")? The reason why is because former Yugoslavia football system had only League and Cup competitions and didnt had League cup or Supercup as the third one.Ratipok (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you could do is just have one table and then some footnotes explaining the switch from Yugoslavia to Slovenia I think that would be the easiest solution. NapHit (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the same. However, I still have a slight problem. If I use template for Slovenia (SVN) i have Slovenian Cup and Slovenian Supercup in the head of the table, yet the club played in Yugoslav football system for the first thirty years. If I use a neutral table, then I have a problem because I would again have "League Cup" at the head, yet neither country had one. The solution for my problem would be if a neutral table with "Supercup" implemented would exists, but I tried and dont believe it can be made, or at least I dont know how to make one.Ratipok (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit


Copyedit problems reply

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm very sorry for what happened with your copyedit request today. As you can see, I'm still very new to copyediting, and to Wikipedia as a whole. Please forgive me, I think I still have a lot to learn before going back to copyediting. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - review 02:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Its fine but the skills necessary to copyedit do take a while to develop, and I see that you're a new editor so perhaps you should have waited a while longer. At least your enthusiastic and willing to take on the burden. I would advise to look into the copyedit backlog as a way of honing your copyedit skills there are over 3,500 articles that require copyediting and I think copyediting a few of these will help your skills develop. NapHit (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Congratulations on your good article! --Nathan2055talk - review 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Liverpool F.C.: wrong peer review

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I'm not knowledgeable about these things, but as far as I can see your latest edit to Talk:Liverpool F.C. makes it refer to the 2008 peer review rather than the recent one. Good luck for the FA. --Stfg (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

2001 UEFA Super Cup

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

GA review started, it should pass but needs a little work. Adam4267 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being on the review for a while I have been a bit busy recently. I will try to get it finished off later today. Adam4267 (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool's FAC

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I know that this is Liverpool's fifth FAC. Despite being a Manchester United supporter myself I recognise that Liverpool is also a great club that deserves the best Wikipedia article it can have. So please don't be discouraged by my observations so far; I'll very likely have many more to make before the FAC is over, but I'll also help where I can, as I'm sure will the other reviewers in due course. My aim is to help you get it through FAC this time around, not to criticise all the hard work you've already put in. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments you've made, after all if the article is not up to scratch then it should not pass. Your comments so far have been very helpful and have been better than in previous FACs were the prose was deemed awful. So at least I know the article is one the right tracks. NapHit (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
You've got some work to do still, but I think you're getting close. Stick with it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All images or infobox

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I will give you a choice of either putting back all the images on the articles or we could go down the route of List of PGA Championship champions and put in the infobox like is done on tennis articles such as List of Australian Open men's singles champions. I like it both ways, but what is your preference?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The image that was in the lead was fine just leave that there. Infobox's are more for articles. Images are generally required for featured lists, the reason I removed the other ones was because they were comprising the aesthetics of the table. I'll put the image back in the lead, it looks much better than the infobox. NapHit (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So Hagen is more important than Nicklaus and Jones is more important than Hogan? They both won equal amount of titles at the PGA and U.S. Open.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
When the article got promoted to a featured list three years ago, those were the images in the lead. I think the reason I put Hagen in the lead was because he won his titles first. Look I think you've got the wrong end of the stick from my edits yesterday I was clearing up the areas round the tables so it make the table better and the information easier to read. Images in the lead are encouraged. NapHit (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree! So, it is also the same way with infoboxes can be used in place of images in a lead section to summarize the article in question. I disagree with you that we have to remove the images because they impede the table, which they don't. Differing monitors display the text and tables differently based on resolution and size fo the screen.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't be bothered debating this any longer it really is trivial, just leave the lists the way they were before I removed the images yeesterday. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
See this would impact my ongoing FLC right now List of LPGA Championship champions that I corrected to make to the modern FLC standards. The men's images need more work in terms of alt text and other accessibility measures, so these had to have scope rows, scope columns, and yet to be done is alt text. By the way, I would say look at my work on List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions, List of U.S. Women's Open (golf) champions that are FL now. Before I got to them fixing what Bluedogtn created it was a mess like these. All articles now must be able to meet the access standards even FL, which these were promoted three years ago many things have indeed changed. I fixed these to make all the table access friendly to match the women's because if I had not done so these could have been nominated for FLC removal, which is not what I wanted to happen to your hard work. You did great, but things have moved on to meet a high standard.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes in List of U.S. Open article

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Why did you remove the verification measure from that article like it is with all the other's? Just a little bit more than a tad bit curious.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what verification measure you are on about, but I'll try and explain. Firstly I removed the notes which stated that golfers such as Francis Ouimet were amateurs, the key explains the representative colour means this so the notes were redundant. I removed all those references because they were not needed. The general references do their job, so there is no opint in having extra references when they are not needed. NapHit (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You took out the notes column, which [[1]] it is in an old revision, so you took and put the playoff by the golfer, which should be done in a notes column to make it cleaner and be Access friendly to users with visual readers. Plus, you delete the references for each individual years tournament so now it violates the verification measures to insure consistancy.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I took out the notes column because its redundant without the refs for every year. I have recently had lists promoted to featured status using this method so it not being access friendly doesn't wash, the reader can easily access them. As far as I'm aware you don't need references for individual years for consistency. If there is guideline I'd like to see it because I don't believe there is one. If that was the case then most of my recent nominations would got to featured standard. There is no point in having over a 100 individual refs when two can do the job. NapHit (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am going to see if you are right or wrong because golfoberser is wrong some of the time like the 1953 U.S. Open. See you have to have each year cited by individual sources see 3-over 283]. Golf Observer cannot always be relied upon to provide the to par correct source. This means each year needs to have their own verifiable information. This is just one mishap that I found making leaderboard, which I hope to find no more, but I am not hopeful!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Why if you were the one adding the references are you now deleting them? I would have been glad to find the others, but you did not give me a chance to do so. Would you be mad if I put them back in so all the golfing list articles are the same or do you want me to delete them all?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
When I made the lists in 2008 and I stress 2008 that was the protocol. As time moves on so does protocol, general sources for the whole list are now used more widely. I think your making a mountain out of a molehill here. If you have one reference that covers the whole list then there is no point in using multiple references. I don't want you to anything I don't understand why you keep badgering me about this. I'll find sources which verify all the information in the table. OK. NapHit (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I just want Wikipedia to be accurate and verifiable in all, sorry for being a hard ass about sources, but Golfobserver from time-to-time gets things wrong! I believe in the quote "Trust but Verify", but I forgot who actually said the quote.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that if all the information can be attributed to a single, reliable general source then additional sources are not necessary. However, if a disparity of information occurs between sources, then others need to be brought in to clarify that information. If there are no differences between the given source and other sources, then one will suffice. SFB 17:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

See also sections

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Then, if you would please go and delete them from the women's lists Kraft Nabisco, LPGA, U.S. Women's Open, and others.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope I have better things to do than go around deleting see also sections if uniformity between all forms of golf lists and other lists bothers you then do it yourself. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

300 save club

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks so much for the speedy review, I've fixed everything but the ACCESS issues and I'm about to go do that. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IBM Award FL

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have responded to your comments on the FL review page, and hope that enough has been resolved for you to support. For a couple of them, it might be helpful to compare the article to J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award, NBA Sixth Man Award, or another NBA award that has achieved FL status Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your comment earlier today, I have updated it to be in line with similar featured articles, such as NBA Most Valuable Player and J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award. I have expanded the alttext, but since those articles use left-aligned years rather than center-aligned years, the precedent seems to be for left-aligned years. If you want it center-aligned, I can just turn off "plainrowheaders" and that'll do it (more on that at the review page) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated List of Liverpool F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you even look at the list before you nominated it. Most of the problems you cite have recently been addressed since I recently changed the table. The fact that you nominated the list regardless proves your actions are based on WP:POINT.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Florida Marlins team records/archive1

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comments have been addressed, please comment or support. Thanks, Albacore (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionnaire

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm semi-randomly asking users if they would be interested in helping me with my research on Wikipedia. I am writing a dissertation on Wikipedia as part of my undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge. The results will almost certainly not be published to the public, and participants will be anonymous if requested. What I am asking is for you to complete a questionnaire with a number of general, subjective questions about your experiences working on Wikipedia, for example concerning Wikipedia's culture, your motivation in participating and so on. It should take 10-20 minutes. Much more information is available if you are interested. Please reply here or on my talk page. Thanks! I really appreciate any time you can give! Thedarkfourth (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Featured Article promotion

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Liverpool F.C. a Featured Article! Please accept this barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your excellent work on the Liverpool FC article; it wouldn't have got to FA without you! YNWA! GedUK  18:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Vuelta a España general classification winners

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

sry mate but I've never heard of "MOS" before. If you could give me a link to where is says that the exact change i made was "against" the MOS, it would be great.

i made that change because it look much better, and its not relevant to link to the nationality to the athlete when your just reading results. If the reader don't understand which country he/she is from, its just to take the mouse cursor over the flag, and see where it leads you...

Example

Switzerland Tony Rominger (SUI)

Switzerland <-- first link to Switzerland

(SUI) <-- second link to Switzerland


so basically its double up of linking to the nationally of each athlete then. Unnecessary if you ask me, it doesn't look as good either.

also, does this "rule" only effect cycling or does it effect every sport? seems like its for cycling to me

--Jofo123 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MOS refers to manual of style its how articles are supposed to be written and laid out and articles mist follow these protocols. The Mos for flags is here and it clearly states that flags should be accompanied with the name of the country as not all readers now what country the flag represents. The rule affects all articles although the Liverpool article doesn't have the names due to a debate which reached consensus just to have the flags. Hope that clears up the issue. I would advise you look over the MOS so you know what the guidelines in future. NapHit (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:2007 UEFA Champions League Final/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have reviewed this article at GAN, and placed it on hold pending the resolution of a couple small prose concerns and a few references that require updating. Otherwise, it is very close to a pass. Cheers, Resolute 00:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Liverpool v Dinamo AfD

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You should inform the creator this has been nominated for AfD. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spider-Man accolades FLC

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, NapHit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crystal Clear x3 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

List of Clemson Tigers head football coaches FLC

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you please do me a quick favor and bold your support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Clemson Tigers head football coaches/archive1? I can see the support, but it's easy to not notice it when you scroll down FLC. It's important that the other directors can see your support, to ensure that it is taken into account. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Editor's Barnstar
For all your efforts on making 2005 FIFA Club World Championship Final a GA. If possible, please take time to review an another GAN, so we can clear the backlog, Thanks again! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 05:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (September)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

James Nesbitt filmography

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thanks for your support in getting James Nesbitt filmography to FL status. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WPF1 Newsletter (October)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Route to final table for cups

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi NapHit, I am trying to get the 1967 European Cup Final up to GA status. I know you have done quite a few of these so I was wondering if you have come across one where a team had to play a play-off match to decide one of their ties. The reason I ask is because Inter had to play one in the semi-final and I am not sure how to put that in the table. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks fur correcting the table. To be honest I'm not sure about that way though, something just does't look right about it. I think I'll manage to get the article done on my own, I'm really just copying the layout you've used on the other articles. But if I do need any more advice I'll come and ask you if that's ok. Adam4267 (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Good Article Barnstar
Thanks NapHit for helping to promote 1966 European Cup Winners' Cup Final to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Twenty-five Year Award FLC

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, thanks for reviewing Twenty-five Year Award at FLC. I have replied to your comments here and would love for you to respond where needed and take another look at the article.--Found5dollar (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Liverpool in European football

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Sorry, I've nothing really to add. You've addressed my points; I don't think I can add anything else. Brad78 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd simply rather not vote on various criteria; I simply read it through for completeness, thoroughness and depth of focus, all of which I felt were good. Brad78 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1981 European Cup Final GAN

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have reviewed this article, and have placed it on hold pending resolution of a couple of very minor issues. Please see my comments at Talk:1981 European Cup Final/GA1. Regards, Resolute 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter (November)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned non-free media (File:1973_uefa_cup_final.jpg)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:1973_uefa_cup_final.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Melesse (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Gladbach subs

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I can't remember the URL of the site unfortunately, but I did look at all the other European finals and 1973 wasn't there. I've spend a large amount of time trying to find unused subs on the web but haven't found this one yet. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, an image here [2] gives 4 of their subs for the second leg: 12. Allan Simonsen (FW), 13. Heinz Michallik (DF), 14. Klaus-Dieter Sieloff (DF), GK Bernd Schrage ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot that's a great help, will include that now. NapHit (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, NapHit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers/archive1.
Message added 15:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

one-nation podiums

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, where do you think the list would fit? Is it good manners just to undo what someone else did? Formion (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  1. ^ Liverpool former co-owner Tom Hicks cannot sue in US BBC. Retrieved 28 July 2011
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NapHit/Archive_6&oldid=1139489737"