User talk:Stevo1000/Archive 1

Leave a new message

Super Mario RPG lists
You asked why List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was redirected to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars in Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. I have restored the list of locations, and we are discussing it on its talk page. Could you please take a look? If you have time, please also look at List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and Smithy Gang. Thanks! Taric25 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has two lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). User:TTN decided it would be best to merge the lists into the main article and split Smithy Gang into those articles. I recently merged Smithy Gang into the list of chatacters by removing the non-notable characters, and I have asserted that a cameo section in the list of characters is valid, per Trivia sections and Handling trivia that uses Alex Trebek as a good example. I have suggested that we rename the articles per Requested moves to something along the lines of Characters of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) just like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VI or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). I believe if these articles are to evolve beyond a non-notable list, they should be renamed. For example, List of Final Fantasy VII locations was merged into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), because a World article is notable, but a simple list of locations is not. That is why there are other secions of the article to make it a World article. It simply has not been renamed yet.

TTN believes the citations in the development and reception sections of the list of locations, books and magazines, are trivial sources. When I added that the 3D perspective of the game is reminicent of Equinox to the main article, TTN removed it since my souce was "the opinions of the Nintendo Power player's guide writers". Although it was actually Nintendo Power magazine, I do believe a magazine is a reliable source, and I gave a page from Next Generation Magazine which also said the same thing. In addition, I was surprized that TTN said that it was from the players guide, since he claims to own the players guide for the game. He has not verified this, since I asked him for citations in May, "Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context?" TTN replied that he was going to "get to it" (User talk:TTN/Archive 5). TTN claims the player's guide is "at the bottom of a box that's behind at least five others in a cramped space". Seeing that TTN did not recognize that the page was not from the player's guide when I provided a scan of the page in question from Nintendo Power shocked me. However, I have continued to assume good faith by not questioning TTN's honesty.

Per Consensus, I have offered five different reasonable, temporary compromises that might integrate my idea with TTN's. TTN rejected my compromise because it still keeps the articles. I agreed I would consider a redirect, but Article size does not allow that, since the list of locations is currently 82 KB long. Instead, I agreed to help cut down the geography section that is the bulk of the article, but TTN rejected that as well because TTN states, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." and "get past this "having sources automatically means that this information is good" mentality." TTN states, "I don't think they have or will ever assert notability." I have replied with, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if you don't think the articles will ever assert notability, we cannot yet know this, per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
 * 1) Go over the list of characters so we can delete non–notable characters
 * 2) Rename the articles by following the steps at Requested moves.
 * 3) Cut down the geography section list of locations by cutting it into the regional maps the adventures use when traveling from one to another. I can get pictures and write the fair use rationals, and someone can cut down the text that has no citation and does not allude to other media.
 * 4) Write the concept and creation and reception sections for the list of characters
 * 5) Write the concept and creation section for the main article

Would you please take a look at Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and give us your thoughts? Taric25 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Bill Trinnen
A tag has been placed on Bill Trinnen 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wii Remote
Regarding your contribution to the article, please keep in mind that third-party accessories licensed by Nintendo are technically official. Just64helpin (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Man City chairman
Just to let you know I have reverted your edit to Khaldoon Al Mubarak. I did this because following the completion of the takeover on Tuesday he is now no longer designate, but officially chairman. see offical site. If you believe he is still designate please add a WP:RS for your change. If you wish to discuss this further, please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  15:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Join us?


David Silva Squad Number
Added number 21, reported on official website. Can you point this out? Thanks gonads  3  23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Man City supporters
No problem. I'm not sure how much I can add to the article but anything I think of I'll stick in. Honestly 99% of the stuff I do on here is creating my City season articles. Of course I know the history of the club, but aside from having the time and perseverance to copy most of mcfcstats.com onto Wikipedia I don't normally feel like I have enough knowledge to add chunks of prose to other articles. However, I am currently working my way through several City books I bought recently and so maybe I will uncover a few worthy comments and facts to add.

In the meantime, keep up the good work. I personally have long wanted to create a host of articles to match all the other stuff that the bigger teams have - like the page on Arsenal's kit and crests, the rags' 5-article history breakdown, and the numerous club articles about players with less than 50 caps etc etc and it's always a thrill to see another City article spring up from nowhere thanks to the exertions of another Wikipedian. Falastur2 Talk 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * haha, thanks for the comments. I take a lot of pride in those articles, especially when I see some of the styles I created borrowed in other articles (I genuinely don't like the styles on show in, say, the rags' and Chelsea's season articles) although my main focus is on updating the old season articles from decades ago actually. I started off the season articles project and did most of the work for two years up to the early of part of last season but I've got to hold my hands up and admit that last season several other users took over updating the page, and were much faster at it than I was, and I owe them a lot for it. My main focus currently is on providing the highest level of detail for old articles that can be found on Wikipedia - compare my articles for City's seasons from 100 years ago to the other few for that period and hopefully you'll see the difference in detail level. Of course, I'm not actually sure that anyone...at all...reads them, but whatever. I can pretend that they're wildly popular ;) Falastur2  Talk 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, don't compare them. Seems that either some of the other articles have been revamped or I didn't spot how similar some of the other stuff is to mine ;) Ahh well, it's still more articles than other clubs can boast. Falastur2  Talk 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ballet on Ice
If you're trying to make a load of new articles to make up the difference on other clubs, what about an article about a match? I'd say that the Ballet on Ice definitely deserves an article if other pages do - I think, for instance, that Spurs' 9-1 win over Wigan currently has an article, and the Ballet on Ice was far more recognisable than that game, which is famous only for Wigan's ineptitude... Falastur2 Talk 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely agreed on the play-off final - that already has a page on Wikipedia, of course. Would be good to see some of those games get articles, although obviously we shouldn't try to saturate Wikipedia. If we can't find enough information for any particular game, it wouldn't be right to make a load of stub articles just for the sake of the articles. I'm sure there's an article's worth of info in a few of those games, though...


 * By the way, purely out of interest do you go on Bluemoon at all? Just curious. Falastur2  Talk 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah right, that's cool. I used to browse for opinion but eventually got more and more sucked into posting frequently when I see stupid opinions or when people ask questions about the rules to tournaments, which I seem to memorise pretty quickly. Probably unsurprisingly I also go by the name of Falastur there. Falastur2  Talk 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

re: Warning to User:Irvine1969 over vandalism
Hey Stevo. Just a friendly heads-up: use a user's talk page to warn them over unconstructive edits, not their user page. :)

In other news, really liking what you did with the City articles you made. Nice job. Falastur2 Talk 23:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much so. Looking forward to it, even if I am a natural realist/pessimist and am not too confident about the Spurs match. But I'll enjoy it all the same. The Timisoara games should be fun. And I didn't realise the Arsenal crests were non-copyrighted, that's pretty good of them. On top of that they've had a ton of redesigns whereas we've had a grand total of four badges ever, if you include the Maltese Cross on the West Gorton shirts. Falastur2  Talk 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Did you see this? gonads 3  16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Foé
I'm inclined towards keeping the bit about the retirement of Foé's 23 in the main article. The rationale being that any reader wondering why there's no number 23 in the squad list gets an immediate answer. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no harm in having it on both, so I've restored it. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

City strip
Looks good, I'll add to it when I can. I'll remind you that you are free to use any of the kits I've already designed from this page, which will bulk out the article a bit. I'll stick in some third kits now so that the third kit section has relevance, and I'll try to add the others when I get a chance, but you are welcome to nick the others whenever you want. Incidentally, note that some aren't perfect - I need to make some decent socks graphics for instance - but they're there if you want them.

As per the AfD, I'm annoyed too, but it seems Angelo is a bit self-centred around his point of view - his actions show very poor form...but it's hardly the first time I've fought an AfD where the nominator doesn't try to inform anyone who might defend the article. In fact that's pretty standard fair. Oh well. Falastur2 Talk 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't feel like you have to do too much too fast. Just do what you can at the time - the history article can get broken down over time as more information is added. In a few weeks I'll probably be up for adding a fair bit to some history articles (though my areas of specific knowledge are limited) so I'm happy to do my bit...but not right now. All in good time is my motto.


 * Still, kudos for everything you do. It's great work. Just don't feel like you have to try too hard. Falastur2  Talk 17:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is the right 3rd strip for this season? I note a difference between the season and main articles? gonads  3  17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re. Lost Manchester City FC articles
It would seem that these links are case sensitive. Note the lack a capital 'C' in City. This:


 * History of Manchester city F.C.

Should be:


 * History of Manchester City F.C.

Etc... Make sense? I'm not sure why WIKI needs to be this sensitive. gonads 3  17:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Supporters article
Yeah, it looks great, very nice job. And the crest/kit page looks good, but we have plenty of time to bring it up to a top notch level. Perhaps you want to think about nominating the supporters page for DYK, by the way? A DYK article is always a very good thing to have on your Wikipedia CV, and it would bring a lot more attention in the short term. Falastur2 Talk 00:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kompany
Hey Stevo. Care to share a thought here? I guess some others might just keep reverting. Liking your Players article btw. gonads 3  18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Stevo1000, 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:Stevo1000/F1 2010 game. 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) 05:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

re: Update
Hey Steve,

Yeah, I'd been following your progress with some interest. Well, lots of interest. Fantastic work all things considered, I think, and I myself was about to split the history page if you hadn't. Matter of fact with a little more info on the last decade you'd probably have enough info to make that a page all to itself, and then you could probably still make two pages out of the stuff about before. And great work on the other pages too. Sorry I haven't been adding much myself - in terms of prose you've proven yourself far more knowledgeable and capable for the history sections, and as for my tweaks I've been rather busy and/or tired out for the last couple of weeks, so I haven't really been making that many changes. Still, that only magnifies the scale of your achievement - it's frankly incredible, and very well done. I'm sure we'll talk more later, and I'll try to drop in and help you out in future, but anyhow, great job - you probably deserve a break now :) Falastur2  Talk 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

More biased editorial
Hi Stevo, you might want to check out what has been going on here during the past week. Completely slanted editorial IMO. My first instinct is to just delete the whole paragraph re the City - Toon match for presenting an unbalanced POV, or even everything but the first sentence for lack of RS citation. The whole previous entry for the United - Everton game is exactly the same ... a completely one-sided POV that is anti-Atkinson and none of it supported by an RS. The perpetrator(s) on this article appear(s) to have an anti-Atkinson agenda rather than an anti-de Jong one. I am tempted to simply delete both entries for lack of neutral POV and verifiable RS, but I suspect that such an action will be regarded as some kind of biased censorship on my part. Any advice on how to proceed? Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 02:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I did the reversion to the MA article I said I would and so far it has stuck (touch wood). BTW, I did respond to your posted response on my Talk Page back on that Talk Page.  The point of this post is that today the semi-protection on the NdJ article expired.  I considered requesting another one but didn't do so since there hasn't been any more vandalism yet, so I suspected the request would have been rejected for that reason ... and then I would effectively have become the boy that cried "Wolf" should I need to make such a request again any time soon.  Although there has been no vandalism to the main article page (yet) there are two new sections on the Talk Page added by an anonymous IP address earlier today that are clearly there to push a highly biased POV.  They are not raising issues WRT the contents of the article that need to be discussed, nor are they simply commenting on the article, but instead they are essentially vandalism added to the Talk Page rather than the actual article.  Can we just delete those new sections?  I suspect not, otherwise if that was allowed an editor could simply censor any opinion expressed on the Talk Page that he disagreed with by simply deleting it.  Are those two new sections sufficient reason to get both the article and Talk Page semi-protected again?  Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 04:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

University of Manchester
Dear Stevo! You are from Manchester? Are you still living there? This question is because I am looking for anyone who can have a look for something held in the John Rylands University Library. Can you help me? Thank you very much in advance, Doc Taxon (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Stevo! Is it possible to help me? Doc Taxon (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchester derby
My considering work on the derby article as a derby approaches is nothing new, I've been meaning to do a proper job of it for years now. However, having now obtained the two long out-of-print books that have been written about the derby, this time I might actually do it. That and its compensation for the fact that I'm unable to attend the next one due to inescapable work commitments, first home one I'll have missed since 1989 :( . Anyway, to get to the point, I'm asking editors of both red and blue hues what they think should go in the article. Naturally, a History section which goes chronologically through the major events of the fixture will be the bulk of it, but what else? A short "non-competitive derbies" section is one thing I'm thinking of putting in. A section on the nature of rivalry between fans and their attitudes to the fixture may have mileage, but I fear it would become a magnet for dubious POV edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Interest in naval warfare
You have it listed twice. Doubly interested? Feel free to remove this even if you don't change it. Made me smile, though. :D 75.203.219.19 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

History of City 2001-present
Hey Stevo. Great work on the articles as always. I noticed you just updated the Mancini's stats box with the goals for and against but have him having managed 50 games. I make it 53 according to this work in progress I've been updating on my userspace, and my goals for/against differ too. However, my typical reaction to seeing differing stats is not to correct your stuff, as I would have done if I were confident, but instead to question whether mine is correct. I just wanted to ask where you got your figures from, because it's possible that mine are wrong instead of yours. Falastur2 Talk 15:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not too bad, though I'm smarting over the Everton result obviously - it really hurt because I could see us losing to Everton a mile off; I can't stand that team and with how badly they are doing I was hoping we would be able to get them back for the way they've behaved recently, but unfortunately City is City and I knew from the start that we were going to lose. Then again, years of abject failure have made me a right pessimist about winning, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much - I predict a loss most games.


 * As for Mancini's stats, I just went back and added them up again from your source (my source had just been the Wikipedia season articles) and I got the following from my counts:


 * Interestingly, it didn't tally with my user subpage totals either - I had overcounted our goals scored by one (bear in mind of course that my subspace article never had the Everton result added, if you go there to compare and contrast) but I've promptly corrected that oversight. I welcome you to re-count yourself though, as I am just as prone to miscount as anyone - as evidenced by my miscounting on the userspace table - and you may disagree with my figures. Falastur2  Talk 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You removed referenced text
In this edit to Fukushima 50 you removed the referenced information which I had added to the article 37 minutes prior. I have reverted your edit wholesale. If there is anything in the edit by you which should go into the article, make sure you don't delete stuff inadvertently. If you believe the text I had added should not be in the article, you should give a reason for your removal, or preferably discuss on talk page first. __meco (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD discussion
Are you aware of this? Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've posted a page on the 4-3 FA Cup win before but it was deleted. The main argument seemed to be that it set a precedent that if one individual match is deserving of it own Wikipedia page, then any match can. I did think afterwards that it might be worth merging the match into the 2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season page, but I didn't get round to doing it. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wondered who was the author of the first AfD-ed article. I only became aware of the first incarnation of the current article three days into its AfD discussion - unfortunately a little too late to jump in and significantly help sway the debate or even to rectify (edit) perceived faults with that article.  Please understand that each AfD process is a separate event.  That "setting a precedent" argument may have held sway in the first AfD debate of your article simply because nobody provided an adequate counter to it.  The Wikipedia guidance on the AfD discussion process stresses that it is presented arguments that carry the day NOT necessarily numbers of votes cast (although we both know that the quantity of votes cast for "keep" or "delete" is a primary influential factor on the admin. that ultimately decides the matter).


 * Please acquaint yourself with my arguments against "speedy deletion" on the article's Talk page which obviously made sense to someone because the request to "speedy delete" was denied (click on "this" above where the text is reproduced). The debate over this article has moved on so don't allow yourself to get sidetracked into regurgitating old responses that were intended to counter arguments for deletion that may not even get raised this time around.  For instance, the "setting a precedent" argument did not feature very much in the last debate which focused much more on the "notability" side of the argument (although the two issues are closely linked).  Bogus claims last time around that the game lacked sufficient media coverage, etc. were eventually countered at the eleventh hour by yourself posting many of the RS references that have now been incorporated into the article.  Although your posting those refs. should (in theory) have negated the earlier false claims of lack of media coverage, people had already accepted those earlier arguments and had voted to delete long before you countered ... so what you did was unfortunately a bit of a case of "too much too late"!


 * This should not be an issue this time around. The title of the article (which was a score line) was a bit of a problem last time out (because many voting to delete simply ASSUMED that the advocates for the game felt it was notable because of the score line, which is not the case) and the fact that the AfD request for it last time around was bundled in with an AfD request for the "Ballet on Ice" game (which increased deleters' bias against the FA Cup tie article because they saw it simply as more of the same) also didn't help matters. Don't be defeatist and simply assume the worst ... treat this new AfD debate as if none has gone before, and expose those that simply vote to delete because of two prior AfDs for the close-minded folk they are.  Many of the arguments that carried the day for the deleters the last two times have now been addressed in the current article so anyone bringing them up again should be countered with introducing irrelevance and voting on an issue they are not properly informed about (because voting to delete an article without actually reading it, and just assuming it to be a repeat posting of the last one, is against Wikipedia guidance). That is exactly why the "Speedy delete" request was thrown out.  This article has to be judged on its own merits.


 * WRT merging the article in with the 2003–04 Manchester City F.C. season page that is exactly what I was trying to do when I accidentally put the article back out in article space. Take a look at that season article and see how this game write-up is linked in as a subpage in both the "FA Cup fourth round replay match report title" and the last paragraph of the "Season overview" section.  Also make sure you read the "Background" and "Final thoughts" sections  here.  Voting to delete the article on the basis it can simply be addressed instead in the FA Cup article for that season or City's season article for that season is a Catch-22 argument, and nobody should be allowed to get away with it. Because if you add more than a couple of sentences to address this game in either of those articles you would significantly distort the balance of those articles, and this game requires quite a bit more than just a couple of lines to adequately cover it, whether that coverage is as its own infdependent article or not.  Mancini&#39;s Lasagne invite to Harry  Talk 03:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Manchester Derby page
Yes, that I hope aswell, and I understand. But we need to only reduce it to have only most necessary information, which does not include game scoreline. Like behind the pitch information, or real important stuff. – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've noticed a slight bias towards Man City in some of your edits. I know you support the club, but do try not to let that affect the NPOV you are supposed to adopt when editing Wikipedia. – PeeJay 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was just a feeling I got from reading one of your most recent edits to the 2011 FA Community Shield article. It's probably just me though; it still rankles with me that City might actually win something for the first time in 35 years. We're gonna have to reset our counter if Stoke don't win the FA Cup! Seriously though, my apologies. – PeeJay 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see your point. To be honest, I'm not even sure why I accused you of bias in the first place. It's a shame when people mistake fandom for partisanity, so again I apologise. By the way, I feel the message you left at Talk:Manchester derby was targeted at me, and you're right, I do make far too many "deletist" edits. Unfortunately, I have little time on my hands to make truly constructive edits to the encyclopaedia, so I spend the time I do have monitoring the edits others make and doctoring them to fit with established conventions, consensus and what-have-you. I do try my best to make constructive edits, but the other thing I find is that - with my predominant interest being Man Utd topics - other people are trying to make the same edits as I am, so instead of fighting them over who gets there first, I simply adjust what other people have contributed to make it read better. So there we are; I hope we understand each other a little better now, and I hope we can foster better co-operation between United and City fans like ourselves in the future. – PeeJay 00:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if any revamp takes place, we need to be careful not to focus too much on some of the more trivial aspects of the history of the derby. What we definitely don't need is a match-by-match prose record; in fact, I'm not even sure if we need the massive tables of results. IMO, there are definitely too many tables in the article right now. Perhaps what I would suggest is for you to draft a revamp in your userspace (perhaps at User:Stevo1000/Manchester derby), and then we can collaborate over what changes we think should be made. – PeeJay 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Man City supporters
It appears to be a very comprehensive and pretty well-sourced article, but I can't promote it to GA. To take it further I would suggest you put the article through a peer review process first, then nominate it as a good article. I think if you went straight to the GA nomination stage now it would probably fail because there are still quite a lot of assertions that are not sourced, particularly the celebrity fans. I also doubt whether you would be able to find a reliable source for a couple of the unsourced examples of fan culture (the ballboy that looked like SWP and a pigeon landing on the pitch). I'm also not sure whether reviewers like long lists of information (ie the famous fan lists), which can appear trivial. It might be worth writing more about particular celebrity fans where there is a lot of media about them being a City fan (eg the Gallaghers, Ricky Hatton). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 FA Cup Final
It wasn't really copyright infringement I was worried about when I removed the links to those highlight reels, it was more the fact that Wikipedia isn't a repository for links. I suppose a link to the FA's own highlights video would be appropriate as a neutral site, but to link to both Youtube and Man City's site seems a little excessive. Don't Stoke have a highlights video on their website? By the way, why do you say that linking to Man City's website wouldn't be copyright infringement? Is the content of www.mcfc.co.uk not covered by copyright? – PeeJay 01:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The final
I figure it was more reward for the time on terraces at Macclesfield etc. than luck ;) As a season ticket holder for 20+ years I'd have been more than a little peeved if I couldn't get a ticket. Its difficult to put it into words without it sounding trite. The one feeling that sticks out (aside from the obvious elation when Yaya scored and when the final whistle went) is that it never felt in doubt. Even after an hour at 0–0 there was none of the usual nervousness in the stands, as if everyone knew that this was one occasion that "Typical City" had been cast aside. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington
Hi Stevo. I have reverted your entry on the Duke of Wellington's article claiming that he was "never defeated". This is highly inaccurate - Wellington was beaten a few times, as research proves when you follow his career closely. I have recently created a fresh article which supports this: Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The source you cited, the BBC page/historian, remains dubious as he cites no sources of his own - makes wild claims and inaccurate remarks. To be honest I question the whole validity of his article on the BBC website, as it is badly written and biased. Richard Holmes, on the other hand, in his bookWellington Iron Duke, holds the belief that Wellington never lost a "major battle" but to say he was "never defeated" is somewhat over-glorifying him, and perhaps doing him discredit - great men and known for their flaws as well as their achievements because it leaves room for contrast. Hope this makes sense, once you look into it further. Thanks. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh ''' (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastlands
I noticed you changed the capacity to 47,405. I know there's a Premier League document that puts this as the capacity, but it is demonstrably wrong – the attendance for the derby this season was higher than that. It is definitely still 47,726; there have been no seats added or removed. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, other places had it as 47,679 e.g. Telegraph, Premier League. We are seemingly not the first to wonder about it as I picked up this forum thread while Googling. The sources that use 47,679 look to be from the day of the game. My guess as to what happened is that the Press Association will have put out an incorrect figure immediately after the match, but the club corrected it later. So back to square one for the capacity. What makes me suspicious about 47,405 is that it only seems to be used in that Premier League document or other things which have clearly used that as a source – restricting searches by date gives nothing earlier than the Premier League source. In light of finding that the 47,679 figure was erroneous, I'd guess that 47,405 is the capacity for Premier League matches after segregation, not the number of seats in the ground. But that is just a guess. What would clear things up is if the official club website listed a figure. Unfortunately it hasn't done since the site was redesigned in the 2009 close season (before that it said 47,726).


 * We definitely need to do something - the current cite for capacity is to a book that says 47,726, so either the figure needs changing or the citation does. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, and a very good spot. Before I went on holiday I made a few enquiries about the capacity to statisticians and other knowledgeable people to try and get a fuller picture. None of this was something that could be quoted as WP:RS, but gave some useful information nonetheless. The conclusion then was that no authoritative published source was up to date. But now we have something recent from the club itself so yes, lets go with that source (and hope it doesn't disappear, it has since moved to ). Oldelpaso (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Shadow People
Steve,

I've added some information to the discussion over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shadow_people#Shadow_people and I wonder if you'd like to take a look, as you mentioned being interested in helping to improve the article. Maybe there's something you can work with there; I don't think I'm experienced enough to accomplish this. (I posted that and realized I wasn't logged in -- and I'm not sure if I'll get this same IP address when I next return as it seems to change? Just mentioning that in case you try to reply back to me, I might not see it -- so if you do, maybe you could just reply here or under my AfD post.) Thanks! 71.138.116.179 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)