User talk:Sandman888/Archive 2

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and you seem to be really interested in the Barça teams so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter (an intermediate superstructure between the Wikipedias and the Wikimedia Foundation) but this hasn't been approved up to that moment because Catalan hasn't got a/one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT and/or signing the Members and Supporters list following the link on the template. Supporting us will be like supporting some of the goals of the Barça! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Força Barça! Capsot (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. I've seen the page you mentioned, it seems pretty good to me! I'll take a look from time to time to see if there's something I can add. I wish you all the best and if you ever need something from me just let me know! Take care! Capsot (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Managers
I do have data for Managers for all the leagues I cover. I'm planning on adding the information to the sites as an additional feature down the road. I can provide you this information in publication form as long as the data is properaly footnoted and linked to eplinfo.com if used on wikipedia.

Cheers Enb17 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi there SAND, VASCO here,

deeply moved and surprised with that medal you bestowed upon me, thank you very much, indeed. Now, the pressure is a little bit higher, will i be able to live up to it? :) :)

Have a great Saturday, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Take care
Hey Sandman, I'm really sorry to see you go. If it was the Featured list process that got you down, I can sympathize with your frustration with the lack of reviewers, wait time for FLCs, and the constantly changing standards. However, what's much more important than the little bronze stars is the creation and improvement of articles, which is what we are all here for. Whatever your reason for retirement, I hope it didn't rankle you too badly. I hope this just a short break (God knows we all need them), because we always need editors like you. Take care (and please return), Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went to look at the FLC and saw it was withdrawn, then came here. Please do what is best for you, but I hope that you do return here eventually, if you feel like it. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wondered if you'd seen my notes at Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-12/Features and admins under the featured lists section. Your contributions are valuable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above. I left partly for real life reasons, exacerbated by a few reviews very similar to your most recent one. From experience I can say that a couple of months off did me the world of good. I really hope you return, you've certainly got the potential to make Barcelona the best topic on wikipedia. And if any of my comments have contributed to this, I sincerely apologise. My intention was to ensure that football FLs are truly the very best that we have to offer, and you have consistently proven your ability to produce those.


 * Hope to see you around soon. Regards, WFC (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cmts / supports. Perhaps I've been a bit impatient and therefore easily frustrated by the lack of consensus or progress towards it in certain areas. I shall therefore make a habit of only editing on uneven dates. Being reminded by tonight's friendly, I'll try to wrap up the Barca project. Sandman888 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's great to see you back. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too, welcome back, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
you are spoiling the page with this useless edits

look as the camp nou part it's too long that it comes to the next part

and don't say that i am deleting things

i am just removing the useless edits you do

and also you are not an admin to say that i can be blocked

cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by AhMeD BoSS (talk • contribs) 19:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Sandman888, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Sandman888/FC Barcelona. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FC Barca
Of course! I've added a few comments after a quick look. Tom (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Culers.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Culers.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review/List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Champions/archive1
Thanks for the review. I responded to all of the comments; if anything still looks shaky, please let me know.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona
Hello. A few days ago you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of outlying islands of Scotland/archive1
Hi Sandman, can you revisit this FLC when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Barca
Hey Sandman, just seen FC Barca at FAC, and realised that I promised to copyedit, but completely forgot. Sincerest apologies, and good luck with it at FAC. Tom (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NP, but feel free to copyedit :) cheerio Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference of Barca as most successful team in Spain
Hi, I have changed the sentence "and is the most successful club in Spanish football along with Real Madrid" to read "second" and "after" to make it grammatically and factually correct.

It simply did not make sense or give a true and realistic impression to a casual reader of the article. To say that Barca are 'the' most successful team in Spain 'along with' another club is grammatically wrong anyway (they could be 'one of the most successful' or 'a most successful', but cannot be 'the most successful' along with any other team - one is singular and one is plural), and it is factually vague at best also. Barca have won two fewer trophies than Real Madrid and trail 55 to 57 in terms of overall trophies, but fall behind 20 to 31 in League titles, the universal measure of total success in football. Using either measure they are still second in terms of trophy wins and thus we cannot use 'the most successful team' line and be factual.

Without wanting to stoke up any partisan rumblings and annoy, disrespect or upset anyone Wikipedia is always criticised for being incorrect and untrustworthy. This is an example of something that could be read as being deliberately misleading, and if this is to be a featured article it has to be perfect. And with the original line still in, it is not.

I appreciate the wording could be altered, but the meaning has to stay the same.

mwmonk 9 August 2010, 2031 UTC Mwmonk (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Barca TV
Sorry, it was listed at Candidates for speedy deletion as a housekeeping/noncontroversial move. I also looked at the official website, and it identifies itself as "Barca TV" and not "FC Barcelona media". What's your basis for wanting the name to be FC Barcelona media? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Most Succesul Team.
Why you include Eva Duarte(Non Official Trophies), Ok, but you must Include Real Madrid trophies(Copa Latina, Copa IberoAmericana), Real Madrid is Most Succesful Team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarru (talk • contribs) 08:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Contributions to FC Barcelona articles
Hey there Sandman888, I've been noticing your active contributions to FC Barcelona articles - what with all the FL and FA nomination. Just wanted to say you're certainly doing a fine job at that. I support the club's main rival unfortunately (:D), but nevertheless please do keep up the good work on FC Barcelona. Here is a cookie as a snack!



AngChenrui has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

—A NG C HENRUI Talk ♨  13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for La Masia
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

War crimes
Stop with your stupid moves please. Dr. Loosmark 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Culers.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Culers.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Barca
Hey yea sorry still happy to copyedit. Perhaps not till next week though because I have an article at FAC. Please drop me a message if I forget like last time. Tom (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some comments at Peer review/FC Barcelona in Europe/archive2 - sorry it took so long and hope they are useful. Welcome back, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * thx for the review Ruhr. I'm on it, will ping you for a quick glance at layout when done. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Artículo FCB

 * Te lo digo en castellano que seguro que lo comprenderás mejor, deja de politizar el artículo de una vez, si se quieren ver ilustraciones de la Guerra Civil se ven en el correspondiente artículo no en el de un club de fútbol y te recuero la política de banderas de wikipedia, por tanto no procede retirar banderas españolas de la cajetilla del artículo. --Sporting1905 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the part about the Civil War is properly referenced and as such a picture is warranted. The fact that the history of FCB is political is not my problem, nor is the fact that to this day FCB remains a highly political institution. Regarding flags, WP:MOSFLAG clearly states "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" and "Accompany flags with country names" -> remove. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 15:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons
I have added an image to Supporters of FC Barcelona which is hosted on commons. However it wont show, there's just a grey vertical line. Help appreciated Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 13:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tweaked it and it seems to be working. Try sticking to using File rather than the Image prefix. Fæ (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also could be related to the issue that the commons currently has with thumbnails, it should be fixed soon if that was it. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  14:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks DQ, I was scratching my head looking at the Wikicode unable to find anything wrong. Fæ (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Same problem on Boixos Nois. Is this something with new pictures? Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a Commons problem, I believe. They're having trouble with large image thumbnails. If you go to the file description page there, you'll see a note on the top of the page explaining the problem. I believe the higher-ups are working on a solution. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not on commons, but wiki since it's a copyrighted logo. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very odd. I can get it to display at full size, but it won't thumbnail or resize. I've put the request back up. Hopefully someone else can shed some light on it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a current, ongoing problem with thumbnail generation; I understand that the techies are working on it. I will try to find out more and let you know ASAP...but it is nothing 'wrong', just a technical glitch.  Chzz  ► 22:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: The tech team are aware of an ongoing problem generating some thumbnails; it has been a problem for a few days, partially 'fixed' by restarting a server (about 5 times in the past 24 hours), whilst looking at what the actual issue is. I think it is relating to an update to ImageMagick. I can't see any documentation of this bug yet; if I do hear any more, I will let you know.  Chzz  ► 23:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ++ You may have noticed the 'site notice' at the top of Wikipedia now; There is currently a problem with the creation of thumbnails and some may not appear at all. Please be patient, do not remove the images from articles, and hopefully the technical wizards will be able to fix it soon.. The technical 'wizards' are indeed looking into it.  Chzz  ► 02:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to work now, for that specific image; I believe the techs have poked some things, or whatever. Not sure if the entire problem is resolved, but this specific image now appears to work. So, as far as this goes, I think we're done here; if you have further questions, please use a fresh. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 03:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DRV?
Hi Sandman888, I noticed the result Articles for deletion/List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year wasn't what you were expecting. However, I think WFCforLife's suggestion to take the list to deletion review is a good one, as it could affect multiple FLs. Also, I've answered your question here. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing that it was eight or so keeps it seems a bit frivolous, however Struways comment does change the power of the keep rationales somewhat. Whether or not all of those lists are content forks or not, I think it's pretty straightforward when the entire list is a subset of another. I don't see how it can be any clearer. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It doesn't matter if there were 100 keeps, if the arguments were irrelevant and the close was democratic, a DRV wouldn't be frivilous. My view is that it might fail because some of the arguments were valid, but at least at DRV you tend to get opinions from people used to evaluating arguments on quality rather than quantity. There is also the possibility of relisting the AfD, on the grounds that when you strip away the irrelevant !votes, there wasn't enough to judge on. Regards, --WFC-- 20:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and here it is... Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Maybe worth linking to this conversation? Obviously I kinda hope that it fails, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. Regards, --WFC-- 21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Btw, have you seen this? I think it adds some nice historical/MilHist feel to the Barca article. Hope the copyright mess clears up (imo wiki is unnecessarily strict on copyright, no need to ban non-commercial licensing). Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You really are a jack of all trades! I agree, I don't see why non commercial sharealike is a big deal. My solution is simply to avoid copyright like the plague. --WFC-- 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I just came across it while researching the history of fcb and thought it was too good to ignore. That fascist bomber was a pretty good photographer! But I fully agree, I normally avoid copyright discussions, they only lead to edits wasted on talkpages about some German convention a hundred years ago. A shame tho, the footy articles cd be really good if non-commercial was allowed. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: Featured list candidates/List of Atlanta Braves managers/archive1 needs a revisit. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Boixos.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boixos.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Boixos Nois
Your hook for Boixos Nois is great. But I think you should link soccer or football in the hook. Many readers will not know what a pitch or corner is. Dincher (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
The Recopa Sudamericana article has been LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG overdue. All that work finally paid off. Right now, I am working on improving the Copa Sudamericana page (as well as making every edition of the Recopa Sudamericana more detailed then I left it). For now, it looks like I will have little to no help.

Could you please do a no-BS assessment on the page to see what it would need to become a FA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.155.80 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it. The best way for you to do it is to copy the article to your userspace user:ip/Copa Sudamericana and make all of your changes there. Then when you're done, copy paste back into the original article. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 07:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you would like, I could help you with the FC Barcelona in Europe article to make it top-notch. I have a few, good ideas you might like. And it would bump the list to FL standards easily. 68.215.155.80 (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, please write your ideas here :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 07:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead is very basic. It goes from one thing to another without explaining what the things are (what is the Intercities Cup, Cup Winners Cup, etc). In short, it can be better summerized.
 * 2) Messi dependency. The article talks about FC Barcelona in Europe, not Messi's goal tally. You can't find a photo containing some of Barcelona's international trophies?
 * 3) Take a look at the 2010 Recopa Sudamericana page. If you read through it, you will find that I mention 2-5 facts about any subject mentioned. None of the trophy subsections does that. There is barely anything about the Cups Barcelona have participated on. Just "this is -blank- and Barcelona won this on this year and that".
 * 4) The pictures doesn't fit well with the tables (another reason to expand on #3).
 * 5) The Finals section should be colored (Gold for the IC/FWC, silver for the UCL/, Bronze for the USC, etc).
 * 6) If you really want to include Messi in this, have a "Barcelona topscorers on International events" secion. That will be a good enough reason to have his picture around.

Those are just a few. 68.215.155.80 (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi. Thanks for your second opinion on flag of convenience. I'm not sure what your statement: "I concur with your dealings here from what I've read." means. Could you clarify that for me? Thanks again. Haus Talk 09:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! Haus Talk 09:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ping* I think the remaining issues with this article have been resolved.  Haus Talk 09:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for FC Barcelona Museum
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review
I'll respectfully decline to do the GA review of History of FC Barcelona mainly because I think the best articles come out of multiple reviews by multiple reviewers. FAC is different from GAN in that GAN relies on a single reviewer. Since I did the PR, I don't think that single reviewer should be me. I think your chances of getting History of FC Barcelona up to GA are pretty good. Best of luck with it. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Gamper
Hey Sandman888, you're doing a great job on this list. Just wanted to let you know I reworked a tiny bit of the lead, if you don't like it, of course, revert but I thought it needed doing since you included a new sentence at the beginning of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review
Thanks for the review, it was very helpful. Don't worry about me adding to the backlog, I like doing one at the time so it'll be a while before I consider nominating another. I'll think about doing a review but I'm a novice when it comes to that sort of thing. The Joan Gamper Trophy FLC for instance, I missed quite a few things regarding the lead that others didn't. Cheers. Argyle 4 Life talk  18:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I'm not worried about you, however when one adds 40 it really bogs down the process. Regarding FLC, it's way closer to FAC than GAN, FL is actually just like FA apart from image review (luckily) and softer source criticism. I actually reviewed my first GA a week ago. Sandman888 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimaran Capital Partners GAN
Hi - Wasn't sure from your write-up whether you thought the refs were the biggest issue on the GA nomination. I did some cleanup on that as suggested. It is not really "my" article - I thought it had good potential and tried to get it up to GA. I came to it from the same place as you but not sure what else there is to add. I would have added more about the firm's operations but could not find much other than history and investment funds. Let me know what you think about it now |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * References are still an issue, see GAN. Sandman888 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you are talking about the coverage or the format of the refs. I am not going to put the refs into cite.  I don't use that template.  If you are talking about coverage, I have made some other attempts at further referencing but this is about as much as I think I can do.  There is one unsourced statement about all of the private equity firms they worked with.  You can delete that if you feel that makes the difference.  Thanks for the help |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 23:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Format is ok but an article with {cn} tags cant pass. Sandman888 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all the standard is that the article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and (c) it contains no original research." I have added a few more refs but am now officially done. If you won't pass it then just say so.  |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Aerial bombardment of Barcelona
Not helpful. The discussion was pertinent and unconcluded. The title you chose was also a little unnecessary. J Milburn (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Barcelona bombing.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barcelona bombing.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

William H. Prescott - peer review.
I've left some comments at the peer review concerning improvements I've made to the article. Thanks. Claritas § 08:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything major left before I consider FAC ? Claritas § 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I wouldn't think so. Sandman888 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Review conclusion
Look, I don't want ot spend more time arguing with you. I think in general this is a well written, verifiable, stable, referenced article.

I have failed your nomination due to reference issues. As I said, you must provide a reference for every section. By doing a courtesy check of the first couple of referenced facts I found the following:
 * [5] does not back up the prose at all, no mention of Argosy.

- Does talk about the principals coming out of Drexel


 * [6] makes no mention of Argosy.

- This talks about the principals and the deals they did at Drexel which is what the text is talking about


 * [7] makes no mention of Argosy

- Does in fact make reference to Argosy as a high yield boutique


 * [8] has accessdate but no URL.

- I added the access date in reference to the fact that I acccessed this article on Factiva. I guess you can put a link but not sure how you can


 * Which makes everything written in this article very susceptible. You are of course welcome to bring it up to review if you believe that this is unfair.

Susceptible to what? I think I will put it up for review. You seemed very hung up when the fact is that the article is highly referenced including every item that might be controversial. I was also disappointed with the quality of your review which was much less extensive than the other GA's I have gone through. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Culers.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Culers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FCB second crest.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FCB second crest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boixos Nois
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

El Clásico
As for your comment, I haven't inserted any list, I've just recovered a list which you deleted and which is relevant and looks basicly reliable. As for the citation, use the Cn template if you don't trust what is written. As for the flags, take them out if you don't like them but not the information to which they are attached.

Most important, many of your contributions to El Clásico look positive, but some don't. I've been watching this page for quite a long time and it seems to attract arrogant editors who don't like to discuss their changes in a reasonable way. I hope you are not like them. The article is potentially conflictive and changing some key statements shouldn't be done without consensus. --Jotamar (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your quotation from Wikipedia guidelines, ... no source is produced within a reasonable time obviously refers to the time between the moment when someone raises a doubt about the reliability of some claim, and the moment the claim is deleted. You raised the doubt and deleted the list at the very same time, and no time is not a reasonable time, in my opinion. I personally like to let a whole year pass before I delete a claim for which I had previously put a Cn template.


 * As for how relevant the list is, I think that if you check what happened with footballers like Di Stefano, Schuster, Luis Milla, Luis Enrique, Laudrup ... then it's clear that going from Real Madrid to Barça or viceversa is a particularly outstanding situation that speaks volumes about the rivalry between both teams. And I insist that the list, even unsourced, looks basicly correct. I also think that when no consensus is reached about a deletion, the default action should be not to delete. --Jotamar (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tuples in association football. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. The honors you added was accomplished across two seasons (2008–09 & 2009–10) not in one season as you wrote. Thank you. 188.48.15.147 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Quadruple
See Talk:Tuples in association football to know more about your unproven reason.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source didn't say Barcelona did that at same season, we can read and references aren't just a decorations.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference clearly says it's a sextuple, so that's what written. Sandman888 (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, I mean what you added at The Quadruple section not the sextuple.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I havn't written anything there. Feel free to change whatever you want in that section. Sandman888 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Joan Gamper FLC
Hello. I'm not going to support, not because I've any particular objection to the list but because I only went there to leave comments because of my concern that it had gained several supports despite the massive MoS violation with the flags. As you know, I withdrew my objection once you added the legend, and it looks much better since you removed the colourfest at the bottom. As to the numeric columns alignment, it's got nothing to do with supporting or opposing, it's a question of trying to make the list look (IMHO :-) more professional. Have a look at printed tables of numeric data: you'll find them either aligned numerically, i.e. with all the units columns or decimal points lined up (which is quite messy to do on WP given you wouldn't want them right up against the RH border of the cell), or else, generally where the numbers are all of a very small number of digits, centre-aligned. Either way you'll find them roughly underneath their column heading, so you don't get a central heading with the numeric column way off one side or the other. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, cheers. Sandman888 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:bombing etc
Go for it. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Aerial bombardment of Barcelona

 * Nice work! --WFC-- 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hopes it'll spice up the article. Sandman888 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Giro d'Italia
Hey, thanks for reviewing. Are you planning further remarks? (I imagine you are) I usually like to let a reviewer make their first pass on an article uninterrupted. Let me know when you're done, or if you are now. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FL criterion 3.b
I've just noticed your comments at Featured list candidates/List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games/archive1. If you have comments to make about the suitability of a criterion, you should bring them up at WT:FLC or WT:FL?, rather than making comments in a nomination just to make a point. If you're still sore about the passage of List of New York Yankees no-hitters to featured status, I suggest taking a chill pill and just ignoring it. It's not hurting anyone, but your comments may very well. For civility's sake, I'm just recommending that you don't make further comments of that type any longer, unless you want to have a policy or criterion discussion. Thanks. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Perhaps mentioning List of Major League Baseball no-hitters in the 3.b discussion, a list you were aware of, instead of saying "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long" would be relevant back then. The list would definitely have caused me to oppose.
 * 2. Before you make a bluelink to point please read WP:NOTPOINTY carefully.
 * 3. Posting such a comment makes people aware of the policy problems, which your comment testifies.
 * 4. I'm sorry if you felt hurt by me mentioning the said list as an example of 3.b
 * Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sextuple
Would you please explain me why did you remove my edits to the voice Tuples in association football? Have you read and understood the first lines: "Trophies which consist of a single match or two-leg competition (e.g. the FA Community Shield and UEFA Super Cup) are generally not seen as part of a quadruple"? Barcelona's performance is amazing, but technically it's a quadruple plus the two supercups, if we counted the supercups a lot of false quadruples should be celebrated as well. Please, respect the NPOV, as long as the definition is what it is, the quadruple is the maximum result for a team playing in a country with one national cup. My edit didn't cancel Barcelona's feat, but described as is has to. --Vittorio Mariani (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this on the talkpage before. What you are doing is original research if you didn't provide a reliable source to back up the claim that it's 'technically' a quadruple plus two. Definitions are not up to wikipedians but reliable sources. Sandman888 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the City University of New York
Nominating a featured list at AFD just to "test the waters"? You're crazy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC
You may not remember, but you peer reviewed Petitcodiac River a few weeks back, and I've recently placed it at FAC. The comments have died down (albeit the one support), so I just wanted to see if you were interested in placing your opinion. Thanks. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Supporters GA
If you could give the images alt text then I can pass the article that's the only thing that's missing at the moment. NapHit (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Signpost "Features and admins" column
Hi Sandman,

The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both.

Would you be willing to do this with featured lists for next week's edition? If you agree, promotions from Saturday 4 September to Friday 10 September will be eligible; of course, for COI reasons you can't choose your own FL :) They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be honoured. Sandman888 (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's ready for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I hoped the Orwell bio would be ready. Well my pick is the Commandos then, and copyedit at will. "I picked List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall as my choice of the week. Not only does it tell an interesting story of World War II and how the British Commandos had a string of operations in France and Norway, but it also stands out for it's visual appeal thanks to a gallery of live shots." Sandman888 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, Orwell's biblio is almost ready, but a reviewer still needs to revisit. Thanks for the blurb; I'll work it in. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured list criteria 3b and oppose at List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games
Thanks for starting the RfC on featured list criteria 3b. I shortened the criteria to read "3(b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists." based on my reading of consensus. Assuming that this consensus holds and the criteria isn't reverted, would you be willing to revisit your oppose at the FLC for List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games based on the revision to the criteria? Thanks. –Grondemar 03:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings
I see that 2010 Giro d'Italia is now listed as a GA. Thank you. I hope you don't take personally my request for a second opinion at WP:GAN, it was done with the best interests of the article in mind. Regards, Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 06:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but what you did was perfectly fine imo, though this comment and edit summary was not. You can't have them all. Sandman888 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog
Dear Sandman888, the peer review backlog has a fixed format and procedure for adding items, which you are not following. We wait until PRs are at least 4 days old and have not received any substantial comments. The date a PR starts is determined by the date in the PR itself (in bold at the bottom at wp:pr/d). Right now, there is no official backlog as there are no PRs at least 4 days old without comments. While I understand your desire to have your PR request reviewed, please do not keep adding it or the Mario Cart article PR to the backlog prematurely (and please do not link to the article instead of the PR, and please do not change dates). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Mario Cart PR: "Cheers, CarterRodriguez 4:18 am, 26 August 2010, last Thursday (6 days ago) (UTC+2)"
 * From el clasico "Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 12:21 pm, 27 August 2010, last Friday (5 days ago)"
 * I don't understand what you are talking about, the PR is clearly more than 4 days old? Sandman888 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not see this until now. I am not sure how the Mario Cart PR timestamp is different, but the article history shows the article was created a few hours later. In any case, the PR backlog page goes by the time when the PR was listed by the bot at WP:PR (these are shown in chronological order at WP:pr/d, as noted above). We also wait until 4 complete days have passed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Another PR issue
The rules say to wait 14 days after a peer review before opening a new one. You waited one day to open Peer review/La Masia/archive3. This is PR 3 and PR 2 waited 5 days. I archived PR 3. PR is a place to point out problems with articles like the need for a copyedit, but is not the place to get a copyedit. Have you tried asking at WP:PR/V in the copyeditors section or at WP:LOCE? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, forgot about that rule. No the copyeditor section at GOCE takes ages, about a month or so, and it doesn't seem to be a proper place to mass-request 3-4 articles. Sandman888 (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A month or so? No; as a member of the GOCE, I can assure you that it will take perhaps a week, and even less now because there is a backlog elimination drive going on. You can place requests at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests with no problem. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't see this before. Well it's just because I nominated/requested c/e for FC Barcelona in early August and at that time most of the articles where 24+ days old. But if you're open for nominations I have a bunch of lists and articles and lists that needs copyedits :) Sandman888 (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD - Help please
Hi there SANDMAN, VASCO here,

could you please see that Oinatz Aulestia's article be deleted? Almost 30 years old, has never played in higher than Segunda División B. I know that you have directed me to the correct page in the past, by i cannot get myself to do anything there... :(

Thanks a million in advance, keep up the great work, regards from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * here you go. Sandman888 (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)