User talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive 3

Good news, 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has just passed WP:GA review and now has that most excellent green icon in the top right. Keeping the progress going, I opened a peer review for the article in the hopes of getting it prepared for an FA review. If you have some spare cycles, it would be great if you would take a moment and read the article and provide feedback/suggestions on the prose (or anything else). Thanks. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for starting your review on this article. I've tried to follow up on each of your comments, so when you have time to come back, I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks again for your time reviewing this article. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WFC, I moved the article over from your userspace, over the protected, deleted page, so hopefully job done. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. —WFC— 13:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do the rename/expand, go for it. Unanimous "keep but X" !votes like that probably don't need administrators to handle them. I'd say this is an appropriate NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. With "...and therefore I don't understand Kudpung's rationale for why so many fail", you must be confusing me with someone else. My constant and regular contributions to this discussion have always concerned the reasons why fewer and fewer candidates of the right calibre are coming forward. There were two marginal, controversial fails some while back that I may have briefly commented on, but so did a lot of other people too. Generally, IMO, those that fail should have done, and were either NOTNOW, SNOW, or withdrawn by the candidate. --Kudpung (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WaitingForConnection. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred Gregory, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Fred and Val Gregory were two of four brothers who were simultaneously contracted to Watford Football Club? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing HARDBALL are we, shamwari? :P – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nothing like a bit of healthy banter. Thanks for the help with the Cosmos list. There's a players one too if you want to have a look. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hadn't noticed that that article was new. Well done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for clarifying in the RfA. Just out of curiosity, what sort of stats regarding project space edit count do you like to see in a candidate? This is honestly not an attempt to hound or badger, as this is more a general question than anything involving that RfA specifically. I'm just interested in the RfA process and like to understand where different people are coming from and what they're looking for in a candidate. 28bytes (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's more a combination of things, than a particular problem with the number 400. For someone who is going to go into an area where things can go very wrong (History merges), a particularly high level of understanding of what can go wrong is needed, as well as of some relatively obscure policies and legal requirements (such as the fact that under the licence we use, attribution is an obligation unless content has been specifically released as public domain). While some disagree with me for this, I also assume by default that a user will close AfDs, because I have had some bad experiences there in the past. Which takes us back to the figure. He has 400 Wikipedia space posts in total. Not automatically a problem, but his AfD participation is quite concentrated on quite few discussions, and a lot of his AfD participation has been in the last couple of weeks. I just don't feel that there is enough of a track record there, but as I said in my initial post, my gut feeling is that with more to go on I would probably be comfortable supporting in future. I hope that goes some way towards answering your question. Regards, —WFC— 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and the further clarification. I think I better understand your rationale. Best, 28bytes (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great title :) I don't see why it couldn't be adopted to other sports. Part of my thinking was the fact that drafts are a unique American thing, and are such a major part of the American sporting landscape (especially in football) - and as such players who are drafted would easily pass WP:GNG purely because of their having been drafted. The flip side to that, of course, is that not all draftees play, and would therefore fail WP:FOOTY/N after a while. I think having a time-delay on AfDs for these players - a couple of months into their rookie pro season - gives us the leeway to create well-sourced articles on drafted players when they are drafted, in the spirit of providing information that readers will find useful, but also a way of making sure that players who end up not on a roster anywhere don't slip through the cracks. It could work for football, basketball, hockey... any sport which has a draft. I'm not sure how we go about making a formal proposal to get this made into an actual policy, but I would support it if and when it goes forward. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your help in the peer review and to let you know that I've nominated it for FAC. Given the large backlog of nominated articles, the regular FAC reviewers there are swamped. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate your review of the article with any feedback, suggested improvements, or support for the nomination. Please feel free to leave comments in the article review page when/if you have time. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for reviewing the article. I believe I've addressed all of the suggestions you made (which were very good). Assuming you're satisfied with my changes, I appreciate your support of this FAC nomination. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay on my followup of your most recent suggestion (life took precedence for a few days). I've gone back through several match reports and filled in a number of gaps in the prose covering the match itself. Here is the full diff. Thank you for the suggestion to look at these again. The additions definitely represent more complete coverage of the actual event, so this is great.

Thank you also for your conditional support of the nomination. Hopefully now there are no further reservations and you can strike the "conditional." --SkotyWA^T_C 20:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to this so quickly. No worries about bringing up "one more thing." As long as you can keep bringing up issues/concerns, I'm happy fixing them. The article just gets better. I've made an attempt to rewrite the sentece (diff). Let me know what you think. --SkotyWA^T_C 07:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your support! You can sign under support and specify that you are not interested so that your support "vote" is counted. Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC; thanks for your note on my talk page. I was going to reply at the FL talk page but got sidetracked by starting an article (!), so I'll put some comments there when I get home tonight. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WFC, cheers for keeping the momentum going. Spent all day yesterday with new family so had no chance to do anything pro-active. I'm actually, genuinely excited by all this, and I think the quality of our blurbs will be sufficient to cover concerns, and how great everyone's just getting on board! Anyway, if your hornets could draw with Reading today, that'd be great. My lot are looking for 5th win in 6 games...! Fingers crossed... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the arrival of PJ, things have looked pretty much vertically upwards for us. Anyway, thanks for the list biz, let's talk again before too long to make sure we're happy with what we're going to present... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect RexxS's blurb needs a trim, whaddya reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bamse, yes. The only fear I have with his lists are WP:SIZE. Any ideas on lists which would be easier than others? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have requested his attention! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna add your WFC list blurb to my page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any help you could provide to the proposal wording would be good, I'm running on empty!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we're good to go with the proposal, maybe later tonight, or tomorrow? Any other problems with the proposal as it stands? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps we need to initiate a task force to go and address issues on these lists. I'm happy to participate or rubber-stamp... What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, best thing is (for the moment) to mark up the blurbs you've done and what's outstanding. It would be nice to get RexxS to ACCESS-check them and I'll do the last minute audit. I'll also ensure that both of my lists have no discernible problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I remember him and in fact I have a programme wherein then-youth team coach John Gorman hypes him up as the next big thing, but he never made it to the first team, this is confirmed by this book, in which he is not listed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 5ft 7in goalie called Stephen "digger" O'Brien did play for, and captain, Longford Town in the FAI Cup final in 2004, and so presumably had had a career of sorts in the upper echelons of Irish football. So although unreferenced, there would seem to be a soupcon of truth in the article. However, as a Gills fan, who lived within a mile of the ground and read the local paper v regularly during the Richardson management era, I have no memory of him ever getting vaguely near the first team (and as somone with an Irish background, I probably would have noticed him more than most). I can't say with certainty that he wasn't in the reserve squad (as I can't say with certainty that Andy Hessenthaler was not raised from the age of 7 to 19 on a diet entirely composed of bananas and iron filings), but I have no recollection of him.(but unlike CtD, my memory is not aided by a collection of programmes). However, even if he had been around the club, he did nothing at the Gills that would gain him WP:ATHLETE status (I suspect we don't call in that anymore). I'm a bit out of touch with all the arguments over inherent notability as it pertains to the League of Ireland, but even if that falls short of WP:ATHLETE or its successor, their are quite posibly enough Irish news references out there to save the article under GNG. But they need referencing in the article. Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
		I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition. It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal. Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.) Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? Adam Cuerden (talk) (X! · talk)

Posted. Thanks for your help in getting it into such a good state. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he was drafted in 1992 as the 308th overall pick (source). According to this he holds the school record at Penn State for most receiving touchdowns in his college career. I couldn't find much else with my quick search. Hope those help. Other places to poke around might be Penn State's website and maybe the NFL website.

No worries about the FAC review. I appreciate the suggestions you made, and I think the article is getting better regardless. Hopefully the FAC directors will look beyond Mkativerata's commentary on the article "overall" given that he's only reviewed two sections. As you mentioned, many of his concerns are about nuances rather than actual problems with the article. That said, I'm glad he's thoroughly checking the sources. There were some mistakes there that he's helped me find, which is great actually. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have sufficient resources for this. What most people seem to be proposing is a list every day, or nothing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just nervous about mock-ups that say "Today's featured list". People seem to be focused on the detail of the mock-ups which, in this case, strongly implies the one-per-day approach, which we simply cannot support. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I suppose what makes me more nervous is the combination of "Today's featured list" and an area on the mainpage dedicated exclusively to lists. That would imply one list per day...! I read your thoughts, I agree with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Sven's most recent summary of the main page discussion looks good to me, FPs from Tuesday to Friday, 1 FP/FS on Sat/Sun, 1 FP/FL on Mon. Gets my vote. As long as the rest of the community don't mind the mainpage not looking exactly the same every day though.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I don't really like to beg about response, but this list needs to be promoted within 2 days, exactly the time the first round of the WikiCup will end. I have only 2 points; this is not enough to go into the second round. I replaced IMDb links with movies.yahoo.com links, as it has much more reliability than IMDb. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll need it... As far as I'm concerned, and now he's signed his contract, you can have Mr Mutch back. He improved tremendously with regular football, and he won't get that with Blues this season. Just off to the train station, one very excited but nervous Struway2 (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Swarm and I are discussing things civilly. We don't need help to determine when we have nothing left to say. Although we may not change each other's views, the chances are good that a full discussion of the issues will influence newcomers to the RFA that are trying to make up their minds.--Chaser (away) - talk 13:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding map, but please add "GI" (thought you might be Spanish!) Davidships (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've made a probable oversight or two. Generally I usually do add the BLPrefimprove template unless the article is very short, in which case the template isn't really necessary. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I did not understand exactly, your signature was the same as its original one and the links of your signature did not changed. Please tell me more clear. Thank you. Nima1024 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC,

Your comments in my RfA demonstrated that you did a thorough job in going through my edit history. I'm glad you came out with a positive view of my contributions; thanks for voicing that!

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WaitingForConnection. You have new messages at Talk:2010 Ford 400/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nascar1996 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for all your support with the Leper Stone. I've recently created a new Wandlebury Enigma page that might make a better DYK? if Leper Stone doesn't cut it. Also just made Astronomical Complex if you fancy nominating that for some fun. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page. Message added 18:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I've been working on List of Swedish football champions and I noticed that you had some comments over at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Swedish football champions/archive1. I've reformatted the tables, added top goalscorers, added performance tables for clubs, cities and provinces. I've also done some minor work on the lead and added a more suitable image for the list. I've also added some sources. I'm just wondering if you have any advice on improving the list further, I intend to take it to Wikipedia:FL in the near future. Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your helpful review suggestions and feedback in the FAC review of 2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final I award you this barnstar. Thank you for taking the time to identify ways the article could be improved which helped get the article promoted. SkotyWATC 02:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —WFC— 13:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]