User talk:Mr Hall of England/Archive 1

Hi, I've reverted your additions to the template about the TV shows of David Croft - I assume they were an accidental test? With that in mind, I was going to paste the wikitext into a new template, which is what I assume you were intending to do, but isn't Template:International cricket tours of England about the same thing? Bob talk 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,I was part way through reverting all your edits to It Ain't Half Hot Mum as vandalism before I realised that you had split the article to a subsidiary page. Using clear edit summaries saying what you were doing (particularly on your last edit) would avoid such confusion. Cheers, dramatic (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,you asked if I could move (rename) 1972 England Tour of South Africa and 1973 England Tour of Oceania. You (ro anny looged-in user) can easily do that. In the default (monobook skin) layout of wkipedia pages, there is a tab at the top right with the link "mov" (in the line with article, discusion, edit, history etc. It's a fairly east process, so I'll leave it for you to exlore :-) dramatic (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your edits to List of England national rugby union team matches (1970–present) as you had split up the article with no reason and had taken away the key colours from the table. If you wish to split the page up, please copy the colours with the tables and provide the key. Tholly (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:1939 FA Cup Winners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:Portsmouth 1939 FA Cup Team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

== May 2008 ==

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Gordon Banks has been reverted. Please do not remove content from pages without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The recent edit you made to Gordon Banks constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Tombomp (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Gordon Banks. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mr Hall of England. You have new messages at Xp54321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Mr Hall of England. You have new messages at Xp54321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also please remember to sign using four tildes.(~~~~)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I notice you've made a couple of templates for the England European Championship templates. I believe such templates shouldn't be made per WP:FOOTY policy. I've started a discussion at WT:FOOTY#Euro 1968 template. For the time being, I'd pause with your work - there's no point wasting your time if they would end up being deleted anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Image can be found at Image:Portsmouth FC crest 2008.png (Image:Portsmouth FC crest.png was deleted as redundant) please feel free to use the existing image where you feel appropriate. SkierRMH (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated England national rugby union team - Results 2000-present, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England national rugby union team - Results 2000-present. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated England national rugby union team - Results 1990 - 1999, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England national rugby union team - Results 1990 - 1999. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is clear that this is your preference, but if you wish to build a consensus, you need to present reasons, not just decree that it ought to look like something. As I have said, I'd be happy with that grid after some tweaking, but it has major issues. Can I remind you that comments on talk pages should be signed, and that an edit summary should always be provided (having said that, this post won't have one, because it was set up as a new section). Kevin McE (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK - penalty takers and captains found and added. I still don't know the timing of Portsmouth's subs, though, nor the exact kits worn in the replay. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No idea about the officials I'm afraid. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Portsmouth subs are already there, although I don't know who was 12 and who was 14. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

There were only two subs in those days. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your most recent edit to FA Community Shield (your other edits to that article looked ok). You added a heading "This Is How It Should Be" - this appears to be your own point of view, so has been removed. Unless you are saying that those were the actual matches that took place, in which case I think you will find numerous reliable sources against you. The existing table is the correct one (of course if you do find any more errors, feel free to correct them). Thanks --Jameboy (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have moved a load of season pages without any explanation, replacing the dash with a hyphen. Can you explain your reasoning for this, as the manual of style prefers the dash in date ranges? I've seen many bots moving pages in the opposite direction, i.e. replacing the hyphen with a dash, so you may be wasting your time. If you want to put your case forward, I have opened a topic to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Season page moves. --Jameboy (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm not sure why you've decided to move all the seasons in football over the redirect, i.e. 2008–09 in English football to 2008-09 in English football. Although the latter page should exist as a redirect, the former is the correct naming policy I believe. There is also a discussion ongoing at WT:FOOTY. Peanut4 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please stop moving season articles to the incorrect name. WP:DASH clearly startes that en dashes (–) should be used "to convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" and also that "when naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title", however "editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash".

Your continued moves against policy are creating extra work for other editors who are having to go back and fix your edits. Please stop. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please be careful when tagging articles with project templates like the England rugby tour articles you tagged. The quality of the articles should conform to the assessment standards agreed to at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. You may also want to have a quick look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Assessment. Featured Articles should only be tagged as such if they have succeeded at being promoted at Featured Article Candidates. If you are unsure what rating an article should be tagged with, it may be best to simply leave that blank for another editor to do so. Tagging is great, and is helpful when promoting various WikiProjects, but if done incorrectly can be quite misleading. - Shudde ^talk 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've added a comment on Talk:1906 Springbok tour of Europe proposing a reversion to the article's previous title - for consistency with a number of other rugby union tour articles. As you changed it to the current title, I'd be glad of your thoughts on whether it should remain under that title. Thanks.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi - do you have any information about the venues for the matches on the 1979 England rugby union tour of Japan, Fiji and Tonga The 1980-81 Rothman's annual says that the Japan 'B' game was played under floodlights at the Olympic Stadium in Tokyo, but there is nothing about any other venues - hope you can help, thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help with this. I am going to restore the club links on the 1979 tour article as I would prefer to have these in the article - at some point I might add these to the other England tours. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its also useful and a bit easier to use the templates for the national rugby union teams (like England), rather than the version using a piped link. You do some good and useful stuff on rugby union - you ought to add your name to the Wikipedia Project:rugby union and looked at what is on there?? There aren't many people contributing to RU articles at the moment and it would be good if you can add yourself to the project. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. This article was flagged up as a blank page and, as consensus is that Wikipedia should not have blank pages, see WP:BLANK, I reverted it. I then see that you appear to have also performed a cut and paste move to 1920–21 in English football, another no-no as it loses the attribution in the history to all the editors who have worked on the text, thus breaching the terms of the GNU license under which all contributions are made. Further, I see that you have made a very large number of page moves without apparently discussing them first (but do correct me if I am wrong). I suggest that you voluntarily refrain from making any more page moves before someone stops you forcibly. I have raise the page moves at Wikiproject Football for input from others if you would like to chip with your comments. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm striking out my message. The feedback I have is that you were acting in good faith, that there's nothing wrong with your moves (just the problem, I think, with 1920-21), so I apologise for leaving this. Please disregard it. I've asked for someone to sort out 1920–1921 in English football and 1920–21 in English football. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, 1920–21 in English football is now all sorted and complete with history. Drop me a line some time if you need help with anything. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've only just seen your message - I've been offline all weekend. It looks to have been sorted out now. If you spot any problems in future it's probably best to mention them on the Football Wikiproject talk page, that way you'll reach a wider audience and if the fix requires the attention of an admin then you'll probably also attract one there. Also try to avoid copy and paste moves - only move a page using the move function at the top (bearing in mind any naming conventions before you do so of course). Any controversial or potentially problematic moves should be discussed before being moved. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1997 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1996 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1994 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1992 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1991 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1995 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1982 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1981 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 1993 FA Charity Shield, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 1993 FA Charity Shield is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 1993 FA Charity Shield, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1980 FA Charity Shield requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 {{hangon}} 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. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1957 FA Charity Shield, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. k84 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. :) The articles tagged above have been deleted under criteria for speedy deletion because they were very short articles providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" sections, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, rephrasings of the title, or attempts to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

You are, of course, welcome to recreate these articles at any point that you may have time to expand them to meet the minimum information standards. If you can't complete them in one go, you're welcome to tag them with {{inuse}} or {{underconstruction}} to indicate to other editors that they are not finished, but please in that case consider building them one at a time rather than creating a group of articles that do not meet minimum information standards. You can also work in user subspace by creating a personal sandbox as explained here. If you want the ones you've already started restored, I'd be happy to restore them for your further development when you have time to bring them into compliance.

If you want to discuss the matter further, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I might get round to those articles eventually, but I have other priorities at the moment, and I don't know enough about the opposition's line-ups. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on 1910 FA Charity Shield 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 {{hangon}} 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. AngelOfSadness talk 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. A consensus has been reached at WT:FOOTY that FA Cup finals should not be listed in clubs' navboxes, as it gives undue weight to the FA Cup, and to include links to finals that clubs were involved in would take up too much space. Therefore, it would be prudent for you to cease your actions regarding this matter. It's not that we don't appreciate the effort that you're putting in, it could just be better placed, that's all. Cheers. – PeeJay 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have just reverted your edits to FA Cup finals involving Manchester United. Please stop adding links to FA Cup finals to club navboxes. I have given reasons above. Thanks. – PeeJay 20:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of All Black Tests outside the Main 4 test venues, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paulbrock (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

In response to your comment on my talk page, those pages will all be deleted in a few days, provided that no one removed the PROD templates from the top of the page. I would also suggest that you create one big list of every single All Blacks Test, including ones played at home and overseas. – PeeJay 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why split the All Black tests article into home and away? If you look at the lists of England matches, they aren't split home and away. Just makes sense to have one single list which would then give the full set of All Blacks matches all in one. The article which is currently being created can be quite easily expanded to cover all All Black tests - you and other people have done a lot of good work on it and it would be a useful article with the extra matches included.

Also, can you "sign" your posts on talk pages please!! You can do this by typing four "tildes" at the end of your post, which is the symbol which shares the # key on UK keyboards, or by clicking on that thing which looks like a signature at the top of the edit page. It's helpful to be able to see who has the left the message. Thanks.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

How do you know Portsmouth F.C. won the shield I can't find the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Hall of England (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 August 2008

I assume you're referring to this edit I made to the 1939-40 in English football page. As I made the edit three years ago, I can't remember where I got the information from. It could well have been the FA Community Shield page, which looked like this at the time and listed Portsmouth as the winners. Having searched around a bit, I can't find any evidence that the Charity Shield was played at all that year, but I did find out that the result listed on the page matches the FA Cup final score of that year, so I presume that someone accidentally added the FA Cup score to the list. This is particularly plausible as the same mistake had been made with the 1946 and 1947 results, which I removed at the time. I note that the 1939 error has since been removed from the FA Community Shield page, but not the 1939-40 in English football page. I have now rectified this. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Arsenal 12-7-6
• Aston Villa 7-10-2
• Blackburn Rovers 3-1-3
• Burnley 2-2-5
• Chelsea 3-3-4
• Derby County 2-3-4
• Everton 9-7-7
• Huddersfield Town 3-3-3
• Ipswich Town 1-2-3
• Leeds United 3-5-2
• Liverpool 18-11-7
• Manchester City 2-3-3
• Manchester United 17-13-6
• Newcastle United 4-2-4
• Nottingham Forest 1-2-4
• Portsmouth 2-0-1
• Preston North End 2-6-2
• Sheffield United 1-2-0
• Sheffield Wednesday 4-1-7
• Sunderland 6-5-8
• Tottenham Hotspur 2-4-9
• West Bromwich Albion 1-2-1
• Wolverhampton Wanderers 3-5-6

• Blackpool 0-1-1
• Bristol City 0-1-0
• Cardiff City 0-1-0
• Charlton Athletic 0-1-1
• Leicester City 0-1-1
• Oldham Athletic 0-1-0
• Queens Park Rangers 0-1-0
• Southampton 0-1-0
• Watford 0-1-0
• Bolton Wanderers 0-0-3
• Crystal Palace 0-0-1
• Middlesbrough 0-0-1
• Norwich City 0-0-1
• Notts County 0-0-2

Brilliant work. Thanks. -Sticks66 12:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see the AfD for reasons for deletion. – PeeJay 12:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to you on the talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but Chelsea F.C. seasons has not been through a peer-review, be that at Peer-review itself, or the more rigorous featured list candiadacy, which Aston Villa F.C. seasons has been. I have had a look at the other season featured lists and the use of W/R/U is split, some do, some don't, so it is personal preference and upto to individual article contributors preferences. As I wrote it, I used winner as it is easier to work out than a blue W. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Woody (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Woody (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I have replied to you on my talkpage. Woody (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can also add my name (again!) to this request - I'm quite happy to look at the Irish RU tours category but its easier if you can sign your posts please, I had to look at the edit summary to see who placed the comment. Thank you. Nice work on the Irish tours anyway. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have reverted your addition of the FA-Cup semi finals to the Villa Park page. A summary of this is in the other uses section. This was originally in the article, but was removed as a result of the GA Review which recommended its removal. This information is already covered in the FA Cup Semi-finals and there is no need to duplicate it. It has little relevance to the history of Villa Park and its architecture other than that it is the most used stadium in semi-final history, which is listed. Can I also please strongly encourage you to use a sandbox or preview your edits so as to not make mistakes and clog up the article history. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can't exactly see what you are driving at in asking me to look at the tours pages and find out what's wrong. Is it something specific you're concerned about? The articles themselves look very reasonable and are a similar pattern to the articles which you started on England RU tours. If you could give me an idea of what you are after I'll be happy to comment. Thanks.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it the orphaned tags which are the problem? Someone has tagged some of the articles as orphaned because no other articles link to them. You need to find maybe players or management who are involved with the tours and work something into their articles, linking to the tour. Have a look at a couple of revisions which I have made to Ollie Campbell and Tony Ward which will give you a lead on how to "un-orphan" the tours! --Bcp67 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. When you say that you think there are mistakes, what have you got in mind? I can't just look through them generally - I'd need to have a clue where to start. I did have a brief look through and most of them look reasonably solid enough with no glaring mistakes standing out. I changed one of the tour venues in 1981 according to a printed reference, but you subsequently changed it according to a website, which is fair enough. Apart from that, I need a lead on what to look for. Also, can you please sign your posts on talk pages!! There are several sets of advice on how to do this scattered across your talk page. Thanks--Bcp67 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK I see you've started adding personnel to various tours. I'll gladly look through them once you've completed and put all the links in place. Personally I prefer full names now rather than names and initials, and I've also come over to linking all instances of a club rather than just the first but I'm not too dogmatic about it. Good work anyway. What are your sources for the articles?--Bcp67 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another thing which you need to start doing is putting references on articles, which could be either to printed works or websites - have a look at the ref I've added to the 1981 Ireland rugby union tour of South Africa to see what a printed ref looks like. If you don't reference (and I admit I don't always either!), you'll run the risk of someone putting an unreferenced tag on the article or even worse, putting up into AfD on the grounds of non-notability. You've clearly got some good reliable sources for your RU articles but a few references would be a good idea. Not trying to preach, just trying to offer a bit of friendly advice.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! —the_ed17 _(talk) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Dad's Army DVD Collection, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mr Hall, if you're up for another colloboration such as we brilliantly did on the 1927-28 Waratahs Tour then I'll get cracking on 1947-48 Wallaby tour of England, France and the USA. Do you want to do the squad table and the tour match list ? I'll happily write the stories, add the colour and find some pics . What do you say ?-Sticks66 12:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You don't do talk ? -Sticks66 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No hurry. No pressure. Just wanted to know you if you're up for it. -Sticks66 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the title of this article back to what it was this morning. The article has a talk page which is there for discussion of page moves before reaching a consensus, which is exactly what happened with the article if you care to read it (I know you treat talk pages as a type of sandbox, but in fact they aren't, they are actually a page for discussion about the article, see WP:TP). Not only did you move it on the basis "it sounds better", which is hardly rational, but you also failed to move the redirects, which leads to double redirects - when you do page moves, you need to check the redirects created and eliminate any doubles. If you want to suggest an alternative name for the tour, go the talk page and make a case for it which we can discuss. Thanks.--Bcp67 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Villa Park#Listing all FA-Cup semi-finals where I have repeated my reasoning listed above. I have also turned the rugby stuff into prose in the other uses section. Do you have any sources for that? I can't find anything in my Villa history books. Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

{{British and Commonwealth Academy Award Best Actors}}

If you've noticed, much of the information I add is from a Welsh perspective. Which is fine from my view point as at present that's all I tend to focus on, but my Bible for the South Africa / Wales connection is "Springboks in Wales" by John Billot (1974). Found it in an old bookshop in South Wales. This is why I fill in all the info for the Welsh teams and then leave the rest of the nations with very little info, the book doesn't hold the info for the rest. Scrum.com will give the players and scorers for the main games, but I'm hoping there are books out there from an England, Scotland and Ireland perspective to complete the articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The fixtures for the UEFA Cup group stage have not been announced yet. It is not necessarily true that the team from Pot 1 is Team A in each group, or that the team from Pot 2 is Team B, and so on. Please stop adding incorrect information to the article. – PeeJay 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on New Zealand rugby union teams, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. V. Joe (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't seem useful to have separate articles for each nationality of award winner. The category might make sense. Why do you see them as necessary? (John User:Jwy talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You don't explain why different lists are necessary (and I'm not sure what links you are saying are wrong). One article with a table with a column for nationality would suffice. Even better, a category for each country would provide the same information. Unless there is going to be extensive information on the page beyond the information of the winners, it doesn't seem useful. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role is one of the Academy Awards of Merit presented annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) to recognize an actor who has delivered an outstanding performance while working within the film industry. This list is the winners and nominees from the United States.