User talk:PGPirate/Archive 3

This is an archived talk page for PGPirate. To write on my talk page please go here.

WikiProject College football December 2007 Newsletter
The December 2007 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:203.27.235.5
Unless I'm confused, the user had only the one edit to Amrut Nagar today (really more of not knowing what belongs than vandalism) and your warning (which seems a bit harsh) and that's it. Was there some other vandalism I'm missing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is IP addresses is that because people change IP address quickly, we usually don't block (and even for a long time) out of fear of getting innocent users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Chairmen of the Federal Reserve
I probably should have checked with you first, but I moved List of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to List of Chairmen of the Federal Reserve. I felt that "Chairman" needed to be plural, and that the "the" was unnecessary and awkward in the title. I hope this is an acceptable update. Also I plan on updating a few other things around the page; feel free to comment on my talk page if you see anything you want to discuss. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use, non free images
As per the policy on Non-free content criteria, any copyrighted image that is tagged as fair use and unfree image (that lack a free content license) must follow certain rules.

Two rules that seem to broken the most are #8 and #10:
 * Rule #8 states that non-free content can only be used if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * Rule #10 states that on the image description page of each copyrighted image, you should specify the name of each article it is to be used, and include a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item.

For example, there is no fair-use rationale on the Image:UGA$!logo.png page that explains why including it on the Statistical Comparison table on 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" when just printing the name "Georgia Tech" or "UGA" would be sufficient. And I do not know why it was promoted to FA unless it was an oversight because these images were sort of small and easy to miss.

Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hawaii Bowl
I'm sorry, but I am not the right person to ask about that. I would suggest you ask for an assesment from WikiProject College football or nominate for a peer review. Best of luck -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   15:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, I would recommend getting some pictures of the game. I know there's some rule regarding pictures uploaded on Flickr, so that might be a good place to start. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the article! I'd be happy to give you help where I can. There are a couple things that jump out at me:
 * You don't need a cite for every sentence in the game summary, particularly since they're all the same cite. Just use one per paragraph or so. That way, you're not cluttering up things.
 * For the statistical tables, someone suggested to me that I use a Wikitable format. I've used that on the 2007 ACC Championship Game article, and you might look at doing that. The tables I used in 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl were rough drafts that never really got changed. They work, but they're a little big, and someone helped me fix that in my newer articles.
 * As the article gets longer, you'll be able to introduce more pictures without the article getting too cluttered. Pictures taken off of flickr must be appropriately licensed (no rights reserved, creative commons, free use), that sort of thing. It's not a critical fault if photos aren't available, however, and don't let that stop you.
 * As the article gets longer, keep looking it over for grammar problems and smoothness. The best way I've found to do this is to always click "edit this page", rather than just editing individual sections. That way, I'm forced to scroll through what I've already written, and there's always the chance that something wrong will catch my eye.
 * Once you think you've gotten the article the way you want it, submit it for a good article review. That process will probably take two months or more, so don't worry about it if it doesn't happen immediately -- that gives you time to further polish the article and start work on the next one you've got your eye on. It's a great first step before submitting it for Featured Article Review.
 * If the article fails a good-article review or even a featured article review, don't worry. Mine failed each stage once, and though I got discouraged, I kept at it, and it eventually passed. Just keep going, and you'll get it eventually.
 * You're going to run into all sorts of people who will come in, quote some mysterious Wikipedia regulation, and say your article isn't good -- it happened to me, too. Don't let it get you down. Just make the change and move on.

Right now, you've got a great start, and all you need is more content. I like Google News, ESPN.com, Sports Illustrated, Rivals.com, and the Athletics department websites of the individual schools as sources. You'll find others, especially since this was a nationally-televised bowl game. Keep at it. All it takes is time and the willingness to see the article to completion, and there's nothing stopping it from becoming Featured. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May I recommend that you put on open task list on the talk page, so people like me know how to get involved? Thanks! -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Photos
I ran into this problem with 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and had to ask an admin about it. I'll blockquote his email to me.

"It's extremely important that anyone you get photos from say the magic words, 'I grant permission to publish this image under the terms of the GFDL' or something along those lines ... not just 'you can use this image on Wikipedia'. Whatever email you get with permissions in it, please forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so that they can tag the image description page that the permission has been confirmed. There are two reasons for doing that - (1) whoever handles the ticket will confirm that the language we need to have there is actually there and (2) it ensures that if someone looks at it in a year from now, they aren't scratching their head wondering if you really had permission or just made something up."

Basically, it boils down to you getting an email from the person saying "I release photograph XXX into the public domain (or whatever license)." You'd then forward that email to the email address posted above, including the image name of the photo that needs the license. They should be able to take it from there. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Content-wise, the article's looking really good now. I'd suggest submitting it for a GA review, just to get the process going. Because there's so many articles trying to get Good Status, the wait time can be long. I'd suggest inserting it now, so that by the time that there's a reviewer for it, the article would be ready.
 * Right now, the main thing left to do with this article is to copyedit it. I'd suggest posting a request on the League of Copyeditors page. That's the quickest way to get expert help. Before that, I'd suggest looking over the Manual of Style entry on photo captions. The ones you've got on there aren't very descriptive and have some tense problems that also crop up throughout the article (though those will likely be addressed by a copyeditor). You've come a long way on this article, and it's definitely coming together now. It's better, content-wise, than 99% of the single-game college football articles out there. Now, you've got to focus on the presentation, and the League of Copyeditors is the place for that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article
Congrats on getting the article to good-article status! I'm surprised that an editor got to reviewing it so quickly, but it's great news for you! I've added the article to the collection of GA articles on the main college football wikiproject page, and have added it to the list of new high-quality articles in the next newsletter. I've got a bit of free time, so I guess I can run through a copyedit for style before you submit it for a FAC. That'll get you a lot of comments, and you should be able to make the needed corrections during the FAC process. I'll give you a heads-up when I've finished the copyedit. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More 2007 Hawaii Bowl Stuff
Okay, I've gone through and done a fairly thorough copyedit. There's no guarantee that I haven't missed something, so if something looks wrong, go ahead and change it. There's three main things that come to mind right away that still need to be fixed before submitting to FAC. Once they're fixed, I'd suggest submitting it to the Featured Article Candidacy and seeing what things people suggest fixing. They're pretty good at catching problems there.
 * Insert non-breaking spaces between numbers and their labels. For example, in 1,050 yards, you'd need a non-breaking space between the number and yards. WP:STYLE requires that, and if you don't change it, someone will bring it up at FAC.
 * Change hyphens to en-dashes for ranges. For example, when you say a 7-5 record, that hyphen should be an en-dash. Again, it's a WP:Style thing.
 * Work on the smoothness of the play-by-play section. Right now, it's somewhat difficult to follow the action in places... you talk about one drive or one play, but kind of gloss over the plays leading up to it and following it. In addition, there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on which plays were more important than another. For example, when I was copyediting, more than once I saw one sentence spent on a fumble recovery, but a whole paragraph devoted to a punt and its five-yard return.

That last point may be covered a bit better if someone at LoCE ever gets around to looking at the article. After you make those non-breaking space and en-dash corrections, I'd submit the article to FAC and move the request for copyediting up to the featured-article-candidate section at the LoCE page. That might get it a little more attention. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can support it, but be sure to put support as nominator. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you're getting plenty of comments on the article. Don't worry if it seems like a lot of work — It's all worth it in the end. If I can get through it, you can get through it, too. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you just work hard to combine the existing paragraphs into larger ones and ensure the flow is good so the prose doesn't suffer. I think you have enough information there, it's just very choppy and journalistic, not "brilliant prose" quite yet! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem left is that the prose doesn't flow well. You've got the information, the sources, and the pictures, but someone should really go through and fix the niggling style problems and flow of the prose. I'd suggest User:Karanacs. If you do submit it right now, be prepared for a lot of flak. I think it's worthy of support, but you'll probably run into some rough spots. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

2007 Hawai'i Bowl
Hi, I was sorry to see that your FA nomination didn't get to stay around a little longer. The game recap section would be a lot better if you could flesh out the scores part a little more. Be careful and don't let it turn into a play-by-play, though. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know 'bout that, sorry. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of new CFB FACs
I've got two FACs for college football coming up/in progress, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at them. The first is 2007 ACC Championship Game, and the second is 2008 Orange Bowl. I've been having a lot of problems getting people to take a look at them, and I'd really appreciate it if you could see if they're up to par and give your support if you think they're worthy. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed a couple of the wikilinks, but a couple of other commenters had asked that I put more in, due to the length of the article. I've tried to strike a balance -- let me know what you think. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to your FAC suggestion in general, how about creating an FAC action team of editors who agree to comment on every CFB FAC? If we have a list of editors who are willing to support or at least comment on every CFB FAC, we might be able to get more approved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely shouldn't create a group who always promises to support on a certain type of article - that violates the spirit of the FAC process. I definitely would mention the FAC noms prominently at WP College Football, and try to teach the members there how to review. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Karanacs. Incidentally, 2008 Orange Bowl is up for FAC review now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

new FACs
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I will definitely take a look at East Carolina University for you. I'm often not very active on the weekends, though, so it might be Monday before I get to it, or I might find a few free minutes and take a look today. If I haven't responded by Monday afternoon feel free to nag me about it. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that's what you meant :) I don't work with Featured Lists at all, so I wouldn't be able to offer any good feedback.  I'm not sure who would be good for that.  You might just browse through WP:FLC and ping a few of the reviewers there.  Johntex might also be good; I know he's at least brough a few CF articles to GA and I think he might have done some lists (I could be wrong about the lists though).  I can try to look at the 2007 Hawaii Bowl again too.  I'm trying to get caught up reviewing what's on FAC and finish writing one of my own to submit, so things are a little wiki-hectic at the moment.  Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi PGPirate, I am honored that Karanacs thought well of my work. I did the bulk of 2005 Texas Longhorn football team which was the first CFB FA. I have also helped with several GAs and done a little list work. I am going to start with 2007 Hawai'i Bowl. One of the first things I do when reviewing an article is to run the semi-automatic javascript program. It has the following suggestions for that article: I am going to work on some of the above and I'll list more suggestions here as I find them. I am going to number them so they will be easier to reference in case you want to discuss any of them here. Johntex\talk 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Johntex\talk 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * 2) Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * 3) Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]  I fixed two captions.  The script still complains but it is just complaining about the image in the infobox because the script does not recognize that it is in fact an infobox (see below).
 * 4) You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) - You can ignore this one because it just does not recognize the infobox because it does not start with the word "infobox".''
 * 5) Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 89 yards, use 89 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 89&amp;nbsp;yards.[?] - I fixed all of these.
 * 6) Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
 * 7) The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, couldn't, weren't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * 1) I suggest added some links to articles that can help explain the game to a reader who is unfamiliar with the topic. In 2005 Texas Longhorn football team we handled this will See also links.  (E.g. See also: American football positions and Glossary of American football)  UPDATE:  I see now you do have two links like that at the very bottom, but I tried to put them in the sections where I thought the reader might need them.  I prefer that approach since I think it is more helpful.
 * 2) Per WP:LEDE the introduction of the article should only summarize facts found in the body of the article.  In other words, there should be no fact found exclusively in the lead.  However, the info about the attendance: "the attendance of 30,467 was the largest crowd to attend a Hawaiʻi Bowl game that didn't feature the host school." does not seem to be in the article.  I'm not sure about the schools final records either.
 * 3) Several football-specific or football-centric terms do not seem to be explained or linked on their first usage. These include "first half", "first quarter" and "return" from the lead section.   There are probably others.  I would link them to the appropriate letter in Glossary of American football, for example "return" would become return.  If the term is not in the glossary you can add it!  I added several new terms along the way like that.

Tyrone Wheatley
You were mentioned as someone who might have an opinion on the Tyrone Wheatley FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

East Carolina Pirates football seasons
Leaving a user a message like "Your support would be welcomed" in regards to an FLC is generally discouraged because we like the noms to be judged from a neutral point of view. -- Scorpion0422 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you've only got one more item on the to-do list. When you get a chance, could you swing by the Virginia Tech bowl games nomination and see if it needs any work? I always like getting as many outside opinions as possible. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone left comments that you think you've addressed, then respond on the FLC page and if they don't see it, leave a message on their talk page saying so. -- Scorpion0422 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving my pages
It's alright now PGPirate. I've learned how to archive my talk page, thanks to User:Harald Khan. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:American football
FYI, see the selected article of Portal:American football for this month. It may look familiar. ;) --B (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley
Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley has been restarted. Your renewed support would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Skip Holtz
I've started digging into this. Should have it done by later today, depending on how much time I can spend on it. On another note, could you swing by Virginia Tech bowl games and take a look at it? It's nominated as a featured list, and I'm planning it as the keystone article of the eventual featured topic covering Virginia Tech bowl games. Any comments on the nomination would be extremely helpful. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorporate the personal life section into the main body of the article, and I think it's definitely worthy of GA status. Back up his marriage and the birth of his kids with citations, put them in correct chronological order, and I think you've got a winner. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD
Congratulations on your recent successful WP:FL promotion. You may be interested in taking part in our experimental procedure for the selecting lists of the day and lists of the month at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

City, state or City, State
I don't know if the MOS has any guidance on this. Personally I prefer City, State assuming the City is pipelinked to avoid any possible disambiguation. I don't like to see commas within a wikilink so I'd definitely opt for the former. Hope that's been of use.

Re:
I see no current season one that format page. Buc (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of public universities in North Carolina
Adding fair-use rationales will stop them from being deleted, but technically they need adding for each article they appear on. Some appeared on two articles and had no rationale at all. However, they won't be deleted now, just removed from that article for which a rationale isn't included.

I'm not a whizz with non-copy pictures, but I think they should just be moved to the Commons, and linked to from En (and all other language) Wikipedia. Check the Image help section first.

It would be easier for me, and others to support if the pictures weren't there. I would remove the entire column. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that being there, and I doubt anyone else would either. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say that while I don't mind my comments being stricken, there are some people who do and while it doesn't say anything at WP:FLC, WP:FAC says "if a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors;". I'd just write done/not done or ✅ / which produced ✅/, and then let the reviewer strike out or hide their own comments when they feel they've been addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page you asked (in response to my FLC comments): "Should I change the scope of the list to all four year accredited colleges and universities in NC?"
 * ANSWER: I can't tell you how to spend your time, but I can say that a list of all 4-year universities in the state could be a useful resource (in contrast, a list solely of UNC system components is merely duplication of the UNC article). Achieving FL status is not a particularly good reason for creating/developing a list; rather, an FL-quality list should be created when a list is the most effective means of presenting a particular type of information (see List). The existing List of colleges and universities in North Carolina is pretty minimal. It would be helpful to create a sortable list of 4-year schools (identifying, among other things, public vs. private and liberal arts colleges) to replace the 4-year portion of that list. Length should not be a reason not to develop an otherwise-valuable list, although it is true that some larger lists are split up due to their length (example: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, several subparts of which are featured lists). --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FLC
If you want to suspend the FLC discussion for the NC universities list, just post a note to that effect in the FLC discussion. The folks who take care of housekeeping in the FLC area will notice soon enough and do whatever needs to be done. :-) --Orlady (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review
When you get a chance, could you swing by the FAC review for 2005 ACC Championship Game? I'm having a devil of a time getting people to review it, and any comments at all would be extremely helpful. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay; I think I've taken care of everything you suggested. If you want to take another swing through it, I'd be grateful. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

East Carolina University
I would happy to review the article. It will probably be in the next few days though as I am very busy at the moment. As a first suggestion you should make a request to the LoCE to have them review the article. They are very good at catching all the little problems with punctuation, grammar etc. They can also take a while to get around to reviewing an article, so make the request early. KnightLago (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, I will try and get to it sometime this week. KnightLago (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of The University of North Carolina Online
A tag has been placed on The University of North Carolina Online requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Boston Red Sox newsletter - March 30, 2008.
You are receiving this newsletter because you are a member of WikiProject Boston Red Sox. If you would not like to receive this newsletter, please add your name here. JJBot (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony James Barr 2nd SAS System link
Hi PGPirate, thanks for your helpful edits on the Barr article. I'm going to restore the second linked SAS System, because I feel it's important to have a link to the SAS System article in the SAS System section of the Barr article, as or more important than the link in the introductory paragraph. I understand the general principle of only linking once, but I think an exception is warranted here. If you have serious objections, let me know. Thanks again for your work. Cheers, Metamusing (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Raliegh disambiguation page
Hi, PGPirate. The manual of style of disambiguation pages states that there should only be one navigable link per entry, so I changed Raleigh, North Carolina back to Raleigh, North Carolina as 'Raleigh' is the dab topic, not 'north carolina'. I also noticed that you made the edit via AWB. Was this a change that was suggested by AWB automatically? If so, I'll need to file a bug report as this type of change should not occur on dab pages. Best wishes. Gwguffey (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima
You should make it clearer whether you passed, failed, or put the article on hold. I think that this article would be a fail, and that your concerns are correct.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When it's on hold, the template on the talk should have its status parameter filled in with "onhold." The procedure is listed on the GAN page. Typically, an article is on hold for 1 week, after which you see whether it fulfills GA criteria. This article, I think, though, would require two. The thing that bugs me the most is how there's a comma before each citation. That is wrong usage. The lack of citations is also troubling, as well as the image issues you pointed out.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know about the review template that you used; I don't use it. I was referring to the template on the top, .  bibliomaniac  1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Hey. You reviewed Assassination of Benazir Bhutto‎ for GA and put it on hold. I have since responded to your objections and was wondering if you would like to have a little at the article once more. Cheers, SorryGuy Talk  02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have another look. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk  03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima
You left some comments regarding the Battle of Iw Jima and I would like to ask some calrification. I have made some of the suggested changes but when you say it needs changes to the prose and MOS can you be more specific.--Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: East Carolina Pirates
Sure, no problem. Where do you want me to post my thoughts? On your talk page, the article's talk page, or elsewhere? -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2005 ACC Championship Game
About a month ago, you graciously reviewed the article 2005 ACC Championship Game for me. During the past month, I've upgraded the article and incorporated your suggestions. I've just recently resubmitted the article for featured article candidacy, and I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the article to see if it now meets your FA standards. Any comments, questions, or support would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you're also active on the FLC page, I'd appreciate any comments on List of Atlantic Coast Conference football champions as well. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I've made the changes you suggested, and another look would be appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Carolina Newsletters
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> A newsletter has been planned for WikiProject North Carolina, a WikiProject where you are a member. As a member, you will automatically receive the newsletter on this talk page unless you choose to opt-out. If you wish to opt-out of the newsletter, then please leave a message on the project's talk page. If you would like to help write the newsletter, then please add your name at WikiProject North Carolina/Newsroom. Thank you. Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This message was delivered by, a bot operated by .

WikiProject College football May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Carolina May 2008 Newsletter
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier.

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Boston Red Sox Newsletter for April 31, 2008
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:Black; background-color:LightBlue; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier. 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of East Carolina Pirates football, 2000-2009
A tag has been placed on East Carolina Pirates football, 2000-2009 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mblumber (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of East Carolina Pirates football, 1980-1989
A tag has been placed on East Carolina Pirates football, 1980-1989 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mblumber (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of East Carolina Pirates football, 1970-1979
A tag has been placed on East Carolina Pirates football, 1970-1979 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mblumber (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)