User talk:Oldelpaso/Archive 11

Manchester United

Great, thanks. Yes it did bring a fair bit up, a lot of which I think I've already rectified. If you have the time, I could also really do with someone to help copyedit it? Best, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of feature status for list

I am not trying to screw with people, prove a point or nothing like that. I know the current usual editos are around and I was simply giving a little bit of pressure to get them to fix all of those problems (I am working on a different article for my birth-city club all day so I don't have a lot of time today or tomorrow to worry about anything else). I was also a bit more insistent because that list more than qualifies it to be speedily deleted. It is the exact same thing being shown in its parent article which isn't even content forking; it is having two different articles with the same, exact information.

I was hoping someone would notice. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores

OK, so the featured article criteria look simple enough, but those few lines have all kinds of hidden complexities. I'll get a quick one out of the way first: images.

Argentina's short copyright term for photos means you have plenty of suitable free use images in the article. The only non-free image is the logo, and that has a suitable fair use rationale. Only one of the images looks like it requires further investigation, File:Internacional CL-2006.gif. This claims to be a Creative Commons image, but also indicates that it is from the CONMEBOL site. All images on CONMEBOL's site are marked all rights reserved, so it could well have been uploaded with an incorrect license.

It is from the Russian version of wiki but I took it off anyway.

On to sources (1c, 2c). Following the advice on sourcing in the first of the links I gave above leads me to ask for more information about how the following are reliable:

• historiayfutbol.obolog.com is a blog. Is the author an established expert in the field, or anything like that?

• Yes, he is. CONMEBOL phased to their new website over a year ago (and they are still updating the new site) so the information is rather sketchy. The author is greatly respected since he still owns several books on the history of South American football as well as archives. He is analogous Europe's RSSSF.

• Same for avoidingthedrop.com

• It is accurate. The site received the information from a forum of River Plate (which in turn received it from CONMEBOL) but it seems to have shut down. Information on CONMEBOL tournaments are rather hard to find due to the disorganization of the confederation but it is accurate. The prizes have gone up since 2006. Either way, here is the page they got the info from (fully reliable). I have added it to the article. Thanks for the heads up.

• historiadeboca.com.ar appears to be a fansite. What makes it a reliable source?

• It is not just a fansite...it is from one of the barras that supports Boca. If you don't know why I told you that, let me tell you now... the barras are part of the club officially which more than qualifies it to be from a Boca Juniors source. You will find scarce info about it but everyone who follows the club, who knows the club know the dirty business. The hooligan problems in England in the 80s is child's play to what goes on down there. Either way, I have put a link from Boca's own site.

It isn't compulsory by any means, but putting the books used as references in a bibliography can be useful for readers. See Bert Trautmann for an example.

• I tried to create a balance between the sources used. The article gets 10 times the scrutiny of everything else simply because it is from Latin America and its main sources of information is in Spanish and Portuguese. Of the 85 references I have presented, nine are from books. That seems fair.

• If, along the way, I find more books, good books, then I will add them.

Make sure each of the links in the external links section is suitable per WP:EL.

• They are.

Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I left my responses to your questions. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I know what you are talking about. In Spanish, it has never been known, popularily, as the battle of La Bombonera. Unfortunetly, Argentina is still known for being sore losers in general and the politics in Argentine football only makes it worst. You oughta check out "Boca Chivas 2005" on youtube. It is the 2nd leg of the quaterfinals of the 2005 Copa Libertadores; Boca had to come back from a humiliating 4-0 aggregate loss in Guadalajara but the match in Buenos Aires finished 0-0 at the 82nd minute. That was more or less the same thing that happened in 1971. Horrid stuff! The difference is that before it used be be player vs player. Today, being the visiting team in South Amerca really means being a visitor so you are taking on the players, the bench, the fans, the barras, the police... Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Blowerb2214

I notice this account continually making the same unverifiable edits over and over. I've added a few warnings to their talk page. What would you suggest is the best course of action? Loving your work, btw. gonads³ 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Glyn Pardoe

Hello! Your submission of Glyn Pardoe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3

This guy is simply censoring information that is unpleasing to him. I am not even BSing: it is straight up censoring. I keep putting sourced statements from people who were actually at an event and he takes it off. I need help with this. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue, do you think that I went too far with this comment in response to the Neanderthal comment immediately above? I didn't want to inflame an already volatile situation, but most people would have taken an exceedingly dim view of similar comments made about people from other continents. I was less than impressed with the reply, but I don't see the value in attempting to continue the discussion. Regards, WFC (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

On a related issue. I have blocked Jamen again. See his talk page and block log. Rettetast (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely snowed under with work in RL so I'm only logging in ever so briefly, but from a cursory look this is entirely warranted, and sadly unsurprising. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello, could I ask your view on a discussion I've started on the Manchester City discussion page regarding Player names and how they are listed? Thanks. gonads³ 08:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Glyn Pardoe

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of top division clubs.

Thanks for your kind words. I hadn't thought about the de-bolding issue, although using bold text for emphasis is generally discouraged and often mentioned at FLC. Would italics be okay on Lynx? --WFC-- 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

re: Ballet on Ice

Thanks OEP. Always appreciate your input and I wish I'd had as simple yet intelligent an idea as migrating the Ballet on Ice info to the season page. Feel free to make any changes you want to. As you spotted, the stuff in my user space is still very much work in progress. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work on that article, OEP. You really are a legend. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Foe - 23

Possibly, I just thought it would be more appropiate on the kit page I've created, like you say though if someone wonders why 23 is not available they get an immediate answer below. I'll leave it up to you to add it back if you see fit. Regards (Stevo1000 Talk 14:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost Manchester City articles

Where have articles and templates like these gone:

• History of Manchester City F.C.
• List of Manchester City F.C. managers
• {{Manchester City F.C.}}
• {{Manchester City F.C. seasons}}

Anyone know? Stevo1000 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been messing with the link on the Manchester City page it seems Stevo1000 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They were capitalisation issues, fixed the ones above. Woody (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hey OEP. I was wondering if I could consult you on a little matter I've been discussing for some time with MLITH and though the matter is drawing to a close, I wanted to see if I could consult a few "expert opinions". You can, by all means, read through the extensive debate we've had here - it also spills onto the rest of my talk page and on bits of his - but to summarise to save you time, we're discussing the squad stats section of the City season article here and who should be included. I made the point that - citing Matias Vuoso as a prime example - first team squad members who are given no appearances should be included on the table because they deserve to be there - not being included in the squads doesn't change the fact that they were part of the team and eligible for selection. MLITH countered that players with no appearances are uncitable (something I disagree with) and including them leaves open the possibility for youths who are on the brink of call-up to possibly be included on the table but not actually make it into the first team and not deserve to be there. In essence, that is to say that his argument is that allowing one player with no appearances to be included allows for the possibility of any player to be added, and went as far as suggesting that he could even feasibly add himself to the table and argue that he has just as much right to be there as someone with no appearances as Matias Vuoso. Personally I reject his philosophy, but I understand the point, and while he's argued me to the point where I'm willing to concede the point as I don't think it's worth arguing to this degree, I wanted to just play one final card by consulting others with more rounded opinions than myself - being yourself and PeeJay. I want to make it clear, by the way: I'm not inviting you to comment to try to win the argument. You may well disagree with me - I'd admit that my argument is flawed though not necessarily wrong - and if your decision is that you favour MLITH's view then I will accept it just as happily as if you agree with me. Furthermore, your decision isn't necessarily a debate-winning or -ending statement; I'm not seeking your decision to end the talks, merely to see whether my views are wide of popular opinion - not least because MLITH has accused me of being arbitrary and focused on my own opinions, and though I didn't find it a very politic thing to say I find it hard to disagree with him - I am arbitrary. Anyway, if you'd be willing to leave your impressions, be it a one sentence "I agree with Falastur/MLITH" or a detailed analysis, your advice would be very welcome. As I say, really all I want here is to see whether I really am allowing my personal feelings to cloud my judgement, or if actually I have a decent point. Any detail you can give would be appreciated but the important thing for me is what opinion you favour.

Also, since I'm here, I saw the Premier League table for today since the games and noticed with some slight disgust that someone has made it so that teams are in equal position. Personally I don't believe in such a thing as "City and Spurs are in joint 8th" place. Either you're in 8th place or you're beneath it, even if the deciding factor is alphabetical order. However, the situation won't last more than a few weeks and I wanted to check whether reverting that decision (I'm sure I've seen it argued away before on the PL article but I can't find where so I can't cite it) would be unpopular and controversial/wrong, or whether you actually agree with me. Right now I'm not quite in the mood for making slapdash edits which could provoke a response, so I'm not just going to leap before I look here.

Anyway, thanks for your time. Please don't feel obliged to read the entire debate (concerning the squad stats, not the PL table) because it will take you some considerable amount of time, but any impressions you can give would be very appreciated by myself at least. For the record, I will be repeating this entire passage on PeeJay's talkspace so if you are the second to comment you might be interested to see his response too. Thanks again. Falastur2 ^Talk 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Forgot to add. We're currently planning on rolling out a slightly new template for the stats which will list which players have been selected for the PL and UEFA 25-man squads - this will obviously affect the concept of a player being included and not receiving any team caps, as strong arguments could be made for the inclusion of players who are on those squads but aren't given games - for the sake of completeness if nothing else, for example. This relies on the 25-man squads being researchable, of course - sometimes clubs just don't tell you who's on the list. Thus, you might want to consider the above example a theoretical example as the chance of players being first team and yet not making either squad is now far less likely than the previous possibility of a player being in the first team and just not getting games (Vuoso). Still, the possibility could occur, and there are potential implications for such circumstances as players removed from the 25-man squads in January etc, so it'd still be good to hear your thoughts.

Blowerb2214

Hello. I note that this good faith editor has added a possible copyvio image here with this edit. How would you proceed? Thanks. gonads³ 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The main logo changed to, with this edit (I think he made a mistake on the first attempt) using this image. Note the created this work entirely by myself. What do you think? gonads³ 11:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Yeah, sorry about that mate. I dunno how it happened. Just ignore it and it should go away by itself :P – PeeJay 10:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just sounding an idea out

Just curious for your thoughts, OEP. I remember that Paul Bradbury tried to make a Man City Task Force a few years back but it failed as there were only the three of us and minimal articles to check up on, and we weren't adding new ones all the time. It strikes me that these days we could probably muster between 8 and 10 of us - if you include the quieter ones who do things like updating the season article - and there are a fair few more articles around - and plenty of scoping for increasing that number. I'm not suggesting that we now form a Task Force, but what do you think would be the required size of City-related articles and number of users to make it a feasible idea? It might be something to look into in a few months' time, maybe a year or so.

P.S. I'm heading off on holiday in...a matter of minutes so won't read your reply for a week, but rest assured I will reply when I get back - so no rush in replying. And if you think the idea is a nonstarter, then please do slate it because the last thing I want to do is get ideas that it's sensible when it isn't. Falastur2 ^Talk 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can't really dispute your logic because now I give it thought, it's pretty obviously true. Thanks for the insight all the same. Falastur2 ^Talk 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the relentless hard work you've put in, OEP. For the record I wouldn't begrudge you taking anything from my userspace if you yourself deemed it worthy (especially something you've done all yourself, without doubt) but I will put it into the mainspace regardless. Thanks one more time for all the work. I'll get back to work myself on the other articles soon, but right now I just still need a little break from it all. I did finish one article though (65-66 I think) so I'll stick that up on the mainspace too. Falastur2 ^Talk 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I never considered that angle before. I like the idea of posting new articles "neat" and complete, but giving it some thought, your method does work pretty nicely. I'll use that system next time. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Curious. Thanks for the heads-up. Thankfully, 99% of my articles are all my own work... Falastur2 ^Talk 18:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Broadhurst

Remember the time when not many people edited City-related articles? Those were the days. Good luck with keeping it all in some kind of order. That aside, Broadhurst banged in a few goals for you, so I was hoping you could flesh his article out a bit, if you have the time. - Dudesleeper talk 12:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Premier League FAR

I have nominated Premier League for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem, I think it is pretty much there now, just a few little stylistic issues being brought up now. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United home attendances

I'm not sure where the discrepancy has come from, but the most recent sources I have all give the attendance at the Arsenal game as 81,962 and the Bradford PA attendance as 82,771. Perhaps some more extensive research has taken place in the last few years that revealed a more accurate attendance for the Arsenal game, but I'd be tempted to go along with the StretfordEnd.co.uk source. – PeeJay 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review for San Marino national football team

Hello. I've reviewed San Marino national football team as a Good Article nominee, and placed it on hold pending resolution of some issues with the citations. You can see the GA review here. –Grondemar 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now passed this article as a Good Article. Congratulations! –Grondemar 16:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Louis Cardwell

Are you able to check on Cardwell's League appearances for City? His article states 39, but Michael Joyce's book gives 42. A third opinion would be helpful. - Dudesleeper talk 14:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchester derby

Which books are they that you've managed to get a hold of? I was hoping to get a copy of this book myself, but £22 is a bit out of my price range at the minute. As for the article, I think a mention of some of the United v City testimonial matches that have taken place would be a good idea. IIRC, Denis Irwin's testimonial was against City, so we've got a fairly recent one right there. – PeeJay 15:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How about a bit about some of the players who have played for both clubs? Good luck with it. Give me a shout if you want someone to copyedit. Tom (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict in Article of Andre Geim, winner of 2010 Nobel Prize

Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:

- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml

- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf

- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html

- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/

- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/

- …

clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. BestAlexander468 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Derby article

I may have a look at improving the Stats section. It lacks a little visual impact, I believe. I'll sandbox for comment before committing anything. I may start by updating that Manchester Derby Graph. Worthwhile? Cheers. gonads³ 19:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Darragh MacAnthony

Simon,
Thank you for intervening in the editing of Darragh MacAnthony page . The user Rachmha has failed to contact me or to justify changes to this page in the discussion. I assure you that I don't wish to enter an editing war but when I saw what was being displayed about this man felt others should be made more aware of his full activities.

Everything done was done with the very best Wiki intent... to share knowledge. However, Rachmha appears not to wish others to know about the evidenced activities of the subject.

I suspect that the editor Rachmha may even be MacAnthony or one of his minions trying to prevent the truth being found on the web as Wiki always come high in the search results.

It may even be more appropriate for this page to be deleted completely and somehow prevented from being re-created to prevent self publicity or self promotion of this type.

I had already exchanged e-mails with info-en@wikipedia.org about the activities on this article and followed their advice to start discussions with the other editors. However, you intervened and obviously have the authority level to do something about it directly unlike the e-mail response team.

I leave it to your experience and judgement and will refrain from further edits until it is clarified where I stand after your warning.

Hutton IT 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HuttonIT (talk • contribs)

Policy on Classification by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality

Hi, I have a problem with the article White Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, check this older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her as White? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Football against the enemy

Hey there, I saw that you own the book Football against the enemy by Kuper. I was wondering if it has a chapter dedicated to the jew coach Béla Guttmann. If so, I'd like to know if it consists of the same precise content as this article, written by Kuper himself and published on an israeli magazine. Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering you. --87.16.4.51 (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. Please answer directly here, not in my talk page.

I'm away from home at the moment and so cannot check, but I will do so tomorrow. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Guttmann is not mentioned anywhere in Football against the enemy. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kind, thanks alot anyway. --87.1.118.56 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lainton

New user has recreated Robert Lainton and has added fictitious games to keep the article in. They haven't appreciated a friendly word and just revert the speedy deletion tag. Can you have a look? Quentin X (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Zishan Engineers (Pvt) Ltd

could you please tell me why the article was removed? I think it was pointing to the first article wrong. I rewrote the article and it was a much better and improved content with more references. The article needed "editing" and "cleaning up" which some administrator noted. There is room for the article to be worked upon. This shouldnt be redirected since Zishan Engineers isn't the official name of the company and having the article with that title would be less relevant than having it in the actual content.Infact there is another small scale organization with the same name but slightly spelling. I would restore the article and put up a request to not redirect it. I hadnt checked my talk page in a while to note the change. Is there a way I can put up such a request in the discussion of the article?Mecheng761 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah.That would be nice.Can you restore the version just removed?also I felt that notability was established and the article had a different content. The article was edited by another author too I would request to have it put up on the main space for people to work on it. If it is alright I can put it up again and put up a request to not move it. There are quite a few people in Pakistan who want to contribute to articles on Pakistan. This article was standing on its own merit and did establish some notability. I think with time more references can be added to show further substantiability. I couldn't find anything on putting up request for not moving article. Would mentioning it on the discussion's page suffice?Appreciate your help119.153.86.166 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:1967–68 Manchester City F.C. season/GA1

I have reviewed this article and placed it on hold pending the resolution of a few issues. Feel free to ping me when you've had a chance to address my concerns. Cheers! Resolute 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a second look and passed this article as a GA. Congrats, Resolute 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

67-68

No problem - I tend to leave a trail of destruction in my own wake (check out some of the other season articles I've written and you'll see about half of them needed several corrections) so it was the least I could do. I felt partially responsible anyway as the little tables of wins/draws/losses etc was my own fault, or at least it was my own data that I hadn't updated when you took over, so the old figures were there purely because of my cut-and-paste approach. If there's anything else I can be of assistance with, do shout, and I'll keep my eye open for the DYKs. Interested to see what appears there. I'm resisting the urge to just read your contributions history to see what you've been publishing recently ;) Falastur2 ^Talk 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neil Young (footballer born 1944)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1969 FA Cup Final

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Neil Young

Hello, and thanks for asking. I think you're right to include the material. If Mr Young included his personal difficulties, whether personal, mental, or financial, in his autobiography then he put them into the public domain, accepting them as part of his life, so we shouldn't be leaving them out of his wiki bio. There are too many "biographical" articles about footballers that drivel on about how many goals he scored and what he won without offering any understanding of the man behind the player. Can't help but feel for the bloke. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Struway says above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi there, many thanks for your kind words! I've always considered running for adminship, but I maybe think I don't know enough about all the policies/guidelines. However, should you wish to nominate me, please feel free, what's the worse than can happen, eh? GiantSnowman 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Woah, thanks very much, I think I've done everything I've meant to on the page...thanks again, GiantSnowman 23:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, silly me, I've done it now. Thanks for all your help! GiantSnowman 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's a crying shame that people who obviously haven't had a look at my actual actions on Wikipedia (as opposed to my admittedly-poor answers to some questions which were deliberatly designed to trip me up) have chosen to oppose me, especially for very false reasons; saying I don't care about WP:RS and WP:V when I quite clearly do is blood-boilingly annoying! GiantSnowman 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GAR

Talk:Neil Young (footballer born 1944)/GA1Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work.[1][2] Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)