User talk:Oldelpaso/Archive 6

Rangers F.C.

Do you think you could wave your article-protection wand when you get a chance? It's been a good time there today. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muchos gracias. It'll likely die down if Celtic go ahead of them in the table. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, shouldn't the padlock symbol appear on the page? - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting to remove it isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it deters vandals who notice it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. seasons

This article is now a Featured List candidate. Please feel free to leave your comments at the candidacy page. - PeeJay 01:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast you! :( - PeeJay 16:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson

As always, your comments are greatly appreciated. I'm off on holiday imminently so I may not have time to attend to all of them before Monday but please don't take inactivity as a sign of ingratitude! All the best, The Rambling Man 21:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start. I need to get my book and hope you could help with Kuper. Otherwise it's bedtime. Goodnight, and thanks again! The Rambling Man 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, still trying to think of a way of wedging this in - my book said he had a one year deal at PSV anyway. He did say qualification on the last day was "..a miracle" but doesn't expand on it. Not sure what I can add to the article here, any ideas? The Rambling Man 15:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so it looks like I'm close to satisfying your concern (in so far as let's not worry about it too much?!)... let me know if there's anything else in the article that needs work. I really appreciate your efforts so far.. The Rambling Man 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Goater

Cheers for fixing those stats. Few things annoy me more on Wikipedia than the slapdash attitude to the figures, and I'm very glad to see Goater get the accuracy that he deserves! Nach0king —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:20, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Help

Hey, could you block User:74.76.209.120? Its been repetitive vandalous edits on York City F.C. by undoing peoples undoing of his edits. I didn't realise there would be so much hassle having it on the main page.. Thanks, Mattythewhite 13:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, its been blocked anyway. Cheers, Mattythewhite 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I wanted to get the page on on the 31st, which would have been even worse. More transfers of course as its deadline day, which leads to more people going on Wikipdia, who therefore see York City and maybe decided to attempt to ruin it! Well, thats how I figured it out anyway.. Mattythewhite 13:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler

Hey dude, just about to start reviewing Fowler, but noticed something possibly dodgy. The image in the infobox is licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 but when I checked the original in Flickr it disallowed derivative works (like cropping out Steve Gerrard) so I think the image needs to be removed. I'm no image expert (goodness knows I made several mistakes with them) but Wikipedia needs to be safe rather than sorry. Perhaps you could look into it further to spare blushes...! The Rambling Man 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight oversight on my part when uploading the image. I have emailed the image's creator, so hopefully he will re-license it under Creative Commons 2.0. Dave101→talk 09:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oldelpaso,

I'm Chanbc and i have created i-Chem Solution Sdn Bhd and i have edited it several time. I had problem with the content to be published and was being deleted a few times. My recent edition to i-Chem Solution Sdn Bhd which i think is fair as i follow the general practices but unfortunately have been deleted by you. I would like to ask your kind consideration to allow me to publish what i have written.

Your help is much appreciated.

Chanbc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanbc (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Robson

Hey, thanks for your comments on Bobby's peer review. I thought I'd be bold and so I've put it up at WP:FAC, should you care to comment. Cheers for your help so far. The Rambling Man 12:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klaas Jan Huntelaar peer review

Hey, could you perhaps leave some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Klaas Jan Huntelaar/archive1? I realise that the article is far from GA status, but I'm planning to work on it for the next few months, so I'd appreciate some feedback that will help me get started. Cheers, JACO PLANE • 2007-08-29 21:32

Thanks! That certainly helps, I'll work on improving the article to try to compensate my sadness at Ajax once again missing out on the Champions League :( JACO PLANE • 2007-08-29 21:53

LOL, the same thing happened to me with your message as I was previewing the message above :) JACO PLANE • 2007-08-29 21:54

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayern Munich 1 - 2 Norwich City

I've replied to your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your input... I could be off the mark here, but I do genuinely believe this is notable. NB, Terriersfan and I have just done some considerable improvement work to the article. --Dweller 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to review it? There was quite a bit of work done yesterday. --Dweller 10:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for responding. --Dweller 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More robbie

Hey, thanks for letting me know about the image. Yes, the flickr licence now is wholly appropriate for the way in which the image is being used. I'll do my best to get the article reviewed in the next couple of days. Any idea how I can get some more interest in the Bobby Robson FAC? Cheers.. The Rambling Man 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Funnily enough, some nine hours after I wrote that, it was promoted. Hurrah, and thanks for your support. I'll get on with Robbie and will hopefully be able to review Scotland's FAC now I'm not stressing about Robson. Cheers again, The Rambling Man 10:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step one done (well two, actually, but there you go) - I've had a first review of Scotland and made some comments. Fowler next.. The Rambling Man 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler done, fail I'm afraid. But I've made extensive comments on the talk page. Let me know if you think I've been too hard. Or if you'd like any more advice/help etc... The Rambling Man 19:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footy project

([1]) are you going to renumber everyone, too? <grins> --Dweller 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I've given it a little tweak. --Dweller 09:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa F.C. seasons

I have responded to your comments on the flc nom. As it is coming up to the 10 days guideline, i was wondering if you could take another look. Any other problems? Thanks. (PS, i amended the date on the footy participants page to reflect your recent edits? Hope it was the correct date.) thanks Woodym555 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Walsh

Any chance you could find out if he played for (or at least was a member of) Man City? My book source says that after he left Blackpool he "later played for Manchester City and Porto", but neither of the online databases I've consulted mention City. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Roy Calley seems to be inaccurate more often than I'd like. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan army

I've added my support. Good work. The Rambling Man 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Milner

Just letting you know they article is currently having a PR. This is quite important to me as I plan to make it a FAC once it is over. Buc 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. I've done my best to address all the issues raised. Buc 10:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've addressed to most of the pionts raised. And I've replied to all the rest. Buc 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester - FA push

Hello fellow WikiProject Greater Manchester participant! T=You may or may not be aware that our Manchester article has recently obtained official good article status! This is a great acheievement, but we don't want to stop there! We're hoping to spend the next few weeks as a team to raise the standard of this article to featured standard! It will only be possible if we work together, and hope you can take a moment to look both at the FA criteria, and the Manchester article and aid us in this feat! Any problems, feel free to raise them at Talk:Manchester! Good luck! Jza84 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favour...

Hey dude, can you spare ten minutes and criticise/support/oppose List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers which is at WP:FLC at the moment? No real rush, just wanted to draw your attention to it. Cheers! The Rambling Man 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Well done on Scotland FA, I only just noticed! The Rambling Man 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for your comments, I've hopefully addressed them... The Rambling Man 08:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Barton

Hi. As it now has GA status, do you think I should go ahead and make it a FAC or send it to Peer review first. I think all the copyediting has been done. Thanks in advance. Sir-Nobby 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford United

Thanks for the pointers on improving the article. I've started working on the points and will try and improve them all by tomorrow. Eddie6705 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another favour

Hi Oldelpaso, could you possibly cast your eyes over Ipswich Town F.C. seasons - it's up at WP:FLC now and I really do appreciate your critical examinations...! The Rambling Man 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Park

Oldelpaso! Villa Park has just had a PR and I have put it up for GA! I was wondering could you review it for me :)! Seen as COMS is FA and i guess you did most of that? Well good luck today... Come on Villa ;)! Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 09:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumour is Little John's out which, I think is a blessing! Watch out for Ashley Young our best player keep him quiet you'll win! Thanks and have a good time today...but not too good :) Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine just need a list of what needs doing so i can do it :) Good luck today! Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hope things are fine! Just made the changes you suggested for Villa Park but could you sort out the redirect for me or tell me how please :) thanks again Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Milner Off the pitch section

Over the past few weeks I’ve been researching desperately to try and expand this section. But for the most part I can only find very trivial facts. Another user has told me that off the pitch sections are not mandatory and in this case it would be best to remove it completely. I’m not so sure, however minor his off the pitch activities might be it would be useful to give an idea of what he’s like as a person.

Please give me your views. Should it be expanded, removed completely or charged in some other way. Please give your views in the Milner Off the pitch section on my talk page. Buc 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KC Stadium GA review

Hello, thanks for taking the time to review the article for the KC Stadium. Keith D and I have addressed the points you raised on the talk page, except for the discrepancy between the stadium's total capacity (25,404) and the capacity reached by adding the capacities of the individual stands (25,000). We believe the additional 404 seats are in the executive boxes, not counted in any total for an individual stand, but we cannot find a source to back this theory up (the discrepancy is also found on the stadium's official website and is not addressed there either).

Would a personal communication between an editor and stadium staff resolving the matter count as a reliable source if it were posted online and made accessible? Or do you have any other suggestions how to address the issue? Thanks again. Doonhamer 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford United GAC

Would it be possible for you to look at the article again. I believe i have made the changes you mentioned. Eddie6705 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football (soccer)

Sorry about the gap between comments, i have been away on a University fieldcourse. I agree that some of the comments are bit woolly but Sandy's are very handy. She is an expert reviewer and i have started to follow her sample edits where i could. I looked over your edits and could not see any problems with them. In places the article text had got quite fragmented and overlong. Your edits seem to have addressed these!!! I will keep looking for problems now, back to work! :) Woodym555 17:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your mop

With your wonderful mop and bucket could you clear up the mess at Aston Villa Reserves and Academy. This should be at Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy. The current AVFC Reserves and Academy page is a copy and paste by Everlast. The whole page is a merger of Aston Villa Reserves and Aston Villa Academy.

So Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy needs deleting, then Aston Villa Reserves and Academy needs moving to that name. I will clear up all redirects and wikilinks once you've moved it. (Just leave a note on my talk page when it is done, thanks) Thanks again Woodym555 12:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i went round and fixed the double redirects before you did the move. I fixed one on the talk pages just now though. Do the talk pages need to exist though? They are simply redirecting to a different talk page. Do we need to preserve the edit history for talk pages as well as articles. Do talk pages come under the GFDL in the same way as articles? Thanks again. Woodym555 12:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football teams - plural/singular

I would be curious if you could give your opinion regarding the use of singular/plural/discretionary plural at the MUFC discussion page....I know you have mentioned the use of plural in the past, I don't want to get you in the discussion just to agree with my viewpoint, but I would love it if you could cast a little more light on the whole issue..

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Manchester_United_F.C.#British_English

Sennen goroshi 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Mettomo

Thanks for that link - it comes to something when the BBC used Wikipedia as a reference source rather than the other way round. Do you have a claim for breach of copyright ;-)

Is Mettomo any good? We need someone to stop us leaking late goals. Cheers.Daemonic Kangaroo 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Barnstar

Thanks a lot for the barnstar! Dave101→talk 17:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 29 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Newbould, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WPGM New Monthly Newsletter

Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)If you do not wish to receive this monthly distribution please put two * by your username on the project mainpage[reply]

James Milner FAC

I don’t know if you’re aware but James Milner is a current FAC. It has been one for about a week now but so far only one user has provided feedback. Since have given feedback on this article in the past I hope you can provide some here. Buc 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Leech (politician)

I'm somewhat dubious as to the reliability of johnleech.org.uk, as it is a blog, despite the official sounding URL. His official site is www.john-leech.co.uk, but doesn't state his DoB. Oldelpaso 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but even before I changed the date, the infobox showed the date as the 1st April, and since I'd been on johnleech.org.uk, I thought a typo error had occured in the text. So, I corrected it. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks :) - Nice use of phrase there. Onnaghar ^{talk ! ctrb ! er} 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Sam Ormerod

On 5 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sam Ormerod, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilf Wild

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilf Wild, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Just in time :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Thanks for that list. Will use it next time I see any vandalism. Which probably won't be too long!! Peanut4 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football (soccer)

Just wanted to say thanks and well done for keeping this article at FA. The review has cleaned and updated the article. What would WP:FOOTY be without the main article at FA! Thanks again. Woodym555 15:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Usernames

As Shalom quite rightly said in the request, time does fly. Also, Thanks for voting in my RfA. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Dearest Supporter,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions! Rudget _{Contributions} 09:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

Thanks for the message, and for thinking I merit it :-) Give me a couple of weeks to think about it, though, as I've got an interview coming up for a new job which, if I got it, would dramatically reduce the amount of time I'd be on WP (the only potentail downside :-) ), so it would seem a bit redundant being an admin if I was only on occasionally. But if I foost up the interview I'd certainly be interested! :-) ChrisTheDude 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like I got that job, so I would be potentially interested in becoming an Admin - what's the procedure.....?

Cheers!!

ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination accepted with thanks. I hadn't seen that link you pointed me in the direction of, it's worth becoming an admin just to see what the full text was! :-)

All the best,

ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. Might save a bit of time lol. Peanut4 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For absolutely no reason whatsoever I went to your confessional page and having a little chuckle at them all. Then saw the bottom one. And everything made sense! Peanut4 12:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry FAC

Hi there, if you're interested, the Thierry Henry FAC is now open. Thanks. Chensiyuan 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael Miller

Can we keep him? Please? :-) --Jameboy 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and caretakers

Hi Oldelpaso, thanks for noticing some of my new templates, and for correcting some of the duff links. Hopefully we'll be able to eradicate the football project of succession boxes before too long. I had a query over caretakers in the template. You removed Phil Neal from the template, but he's still in the MCFC managers category. What constitutes a caretaker in your opinion and is there any reason (other than making the expanded template bigger) to not include them? I've seen other templates with caretakers included with a postfixed (c). There's going to be a lot of difficulty determining whether historic managers were caretakers or not so I was wondering whether no caretakers is "policy" or preference? The Rambling Man 12:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC) In fact, caretakers and secretaries (where appropriate) have just been added to this:[reply]

Perhaps a project-wide approach needs to be adopted. The Rambling Man 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPGM Newsletter - November 2007

Rudget _{Contributions} 17:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinkladze

Translated a Dutch article, see: User:Jacoplane/Kinkladze. I'll see if I can find more. JACO PLANE • 2007-11-5 12:31

Hmm, just looked at the Kinkladze article (I guess I should have done that before translating), and it seems you already have most of what I translated. I'll see if I can dig up something else. JACO PLANE • 2007-11-5 12:57

Thanks for your efforts, there should be some facts I can add from those. Oldelpaso 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Hey Oldelpaso, thankyou for nominating me for nominating me for adminship, the final tally was 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. I really thought at least 1 person would oppose me! Obviously not. :) If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 13:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Thank You

Thanks very much for that. Peanut4 18:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Premier League

Premier League has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the second paragraph in the Premier League problems section. I am thinking it should be deleted as WP:OR or WP:SYN. Even if we do find an paper/journal with it all in, it would still be NPOV laden. Thoughts? Woodym555 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, glad you got what I meant. I agree with your suggestions. I will have a look for a reference on the overall expenditure and will remove the second para of Big 4. I will think about a new title: Critcisms of Premier League? I had a look at the old version before I started editing today, much like you must have done when cleaning up the history section!! ;) Woodym555 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadiga09

Just curious if you happen to be the admin Fadiga09 keeps incoherently shouting about. I'm not wanting to hunt around for this consensus he keeps waving around...:) Dreadstar † 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies...lol..I didn't mean to drag you back into the fray, I'm more than happy to ride herd on this puppy. I hear you on the single-source consensus discussion across several articles, but the location was too vague to act upon. Thanks for chiming in! Dreadstar † 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire Combination 1908-1909

As requested :

1908-09!LAN C-1

Pos  Name                            Pld    W    D    L   GF   GA  Pts
  1  Everton Reserves                 38   23    8    7  104   51   54
  2  Liverpool Reserves               38   23    3   12   91   60   49
  3  Oldham Athletic Reserves         38   22    3   13   75   45   47
  4  St Helens Recreation             38   20    7   11   73   60   47
  5  Burnley Reserves                 38   17   12    9   92   66   46
  6  Carlisle United                  38   18    8   12   79   70   44
  7  Blackburn Rovers Reserves        38   15   10   13   85   61   40
  8  Nelson                           38   15    9   14   62   63   39
  9  Bury Reserves                    38   16    7   15   76   78   39
 10  Bolton Wanderers Reserves        38   16    7   15   90   93   39
 11  Manchester United Reserves       38   13   11   14   63   70   37
 12  Accrington Stanley{1}            38   15    6   17   88   87   36
 13  Workington{1}                    38   14    8   16   69   79   36
 14  Southport Central                38   13    8   17   61   67   34
 15  Preston North End Reserves       38   13    7   18   74   60   33
 16  Colne{1}                         38   14    5   19   68   97   33
 17  Darwen                           38   13    5   20   41   85   31
 18  Rossendale United                38   11    7   20   58   94   29
 19  Blackpool Reserves               38   11    3   24   60   90   25
 20  Atherton                         38    8    6   24   61   94   22

1908-09!LAN C-2

Pos  Name                            Pld    W    D    L   GF   GA  Pts
  1  Manchester City Reserves         38   24    8    6  131   50   56
  2  St Helens Town                   38   24    5    9   98   53   53
  3  Chorley                          38   25    2   11  125   58   52
  4  Hyde                             38   23    5   10   93   59   51
  5  Stockport County Reserves        38   21    8    9  101   47   50
  6  Eccles Borough                   38   22    6   10   86   46   50
  7  Haslingden                       38   19    7   12  102   79   45
  8  Lancaster                        38   17    6   15   71   66   40
  9  Barrow                           38   18    4   16   80   85   40
 10  Rochdale                         38   16    6   16   58   60   38
 11  Glossop North End Reserves       38   15    5   18   72   70   35
 12  Earlestown                       38   16    3   19   65   90   35
 13  Heywood United                   38   14    6   18   76   99   34
 14  Bacup                            38   14    6   18   60   85   34
 15  Turton                           38   15    3   20   98   89   33
 16  Clitheroe                        38   12    8   18   72   88   32
 17  Ashton Town                      38   10   11   17   53   72   31
 18  Pendlebury                       38    9    6   23   54  111   24
 19  Oswaldtwistle Rovers             38    7    3   28   42  137   17
 20  Great Harwood                    38    6    1   31   55  148   13

(Division Two table does not balance properly, I'll look into that!) - fchd (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Everton F.C. managers

Fancy spending a few moments at the peer review for this? I really value your comments and I'm aiming to get this to WP:FLC as soon as I can... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've gone and FLC'd it now so once again, any comments would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments here. I've responded there accordingly... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priestfield pitch

I've added it in, does it look OK.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland national football team

Hi there. No reason why you in particular should do it (especially with the Premier FAR on), but seeing as you did the work to get it there... the Scotland article certainly needs a look over. Bombarded with edits after they failed to ualify, by the looks of things its in considerably worse state than it used to be. At first glance, an entirely arbitrary regular players/occasional players divide has been put it, and the history section split by dates. My time on the net is uite limited at present, but I'll keep it on my watchlist for a while and try and revert any further damage. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry FAC

Hi there, the nomination has strangely, been restarted. Would appreciate if you could re-cast your vote here, thanks! Chensiyuan (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/FIFA World Cup

You were one of the most active editors of this page, you may want to look at the FAR This is a Secret ^account 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]