Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Kingjeff/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 23:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All images uploaded to Wikipedia must have an image tag (See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags) or they may be deleted. --Thanks --Nv8200p (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
! Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. FireFox 16:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I did use it for my last photo deleted. Kingjeff 16:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I arranged the section according to the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs - to standardize the section like many other clubs, so I see it as an improvement. Poulsen 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, the table you've made is too clumsy. Following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Tables#When tables are inappropriate, there is no need of tables when the list is relatively simple - which the template previously used was. Why did you put the stuff in a table? I think it's more confusing now, with a horisontal sorting, instead of a vertical arrangement - if you wanted to seperate domestic from European competitions, a subsection under 'Honours' for each would work fine. Poulsen 00:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How do I cancel my account? Kingjeff 02:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Google screenshot.png, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please make sure that Wikipedia has permission to use these images. Then edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. You may find an appropriate tag at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags or Wikipedia:Template messages, or if none of these fit you may write a description of the license yourself. You may want to refer to the image use policy. If the use of this image on Wikipedia is a copyright violation, please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion to nominate this image to be deleted. If you have any questions, please feel free to post a message on my talk page. —Bkell 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
and whattag should I use? Kingjeff 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks great! I copied the fair use rationale from the talk page to the image description page, where it will be more visible, and removed the "no license" tag. Thanks a lot for your help! —Bkell 05:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
To reply - no, I do not think Bayern Munich should be at F.C. Bayern München which is why I've just moved it back. The point is, as the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) guideline clearly argues, that the most common name in English should be used. Which is Bayern Munich for the Munich-based club (look on any sports website and see that they use that), but Hannover 96 for the Hanover-based club (look on almost all sports website or book and see that that's what's used). Sam Vimes 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
So, you're setting a double standard. Kingjeff 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no debate about the spelling. The fact is it's only 1 n Kingjeff 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I can ignore them because they're wrong. Kingjeff 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You're the 1 not showing a neutral point of view. You're quoting media resources which have biases. It is fact that in english that Hanover has 1 n. Kingjeff 22:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But the word Hanover is still refering to the city even is it's in a soccer team's name.Kingjeff 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kingjeff,
You forget to sign after your nomination of Bayern Munich. Please do that under "Support". Thanks! -Aabha (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to oppose the move. Nach0king 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that you have changed the team squad section on the Bayern Munich article, replacing the old one with a new style. I must let you note that we have decided and implemented a unique standard for representing team squads in all football articles, that was the previous one. Thus, I am going to revert back the old template. The old discussion about the template issue is located here. Ciao. --Angelo 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You're being rediculus. There was nothing wrong with the tables. Kingjeff 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have seen that you have changed the team squad section on the Bayern Munich article, replacing the old one with a new style. I must let you note that we have decided and implemented a unique standard for representing team squads in all football articles, that was the previous one. Thus, I am going to revert back the old template. The old discussion about the template issue is located here. Ciao. --Angelo 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Typically people put their archive links on their talk page. Where is this taking place? --DanielCD 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
When archiving articles' talk pages, please make them a subpage of the talk page you are archiving, rather than a creating whole new one e.g. Talk:Bayern Munich should be archived as a subpage at Talk:Bayern Munich/Archives (with a slash) rather than Talk:Bayern Munich Archives, which is a separate article. This is standard Wikipedia practice, and allows easy navigation from the archived to the current version. Qwghlm 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there...is it ok if I could rewrite the whole Alan Smith article, since it was up for nomination a few weeks ago?--Victoria Eleanor 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If you mean about its deletion, well, don't blame me: I have no idea and no responsibility for it (I'm not an admin, therefore I don't have the necessary privileges for deleting pages). Have you maybe submitted it on speedy deletion? --Angelo 14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kingjeff. You've added Bayern Munich (womens' section) as a candidate for WP:FAID. Would you add all the usual stuff (reasoning, places for voting/comments) there as well, please? Conscious 18:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Bobby Charlton has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
List of football (soccer) clubs has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Thanks for uploading Image:FCBFans.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.
Thanks for uploading Image:Sebastian_Battaglia.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no hard feelings, if you could just stop doing what you are doing. -- Elisson • Talk 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Bayern Munich has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
What a surprise, I've upset you, so you're making large changes to a page I've worked on. There hasn't been any consensus on doing this on the talk page, so please stop immediately. I consider this vandalism, so I will warn you and if necessary have you blocked. Grow up. CTOAGN (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I will also be reverting your changes unless you go about them the right way, so you're wasting your time. There is no consensus that splitting the page would improve anything and non-league player pages are generally merged into the club page. CTOAGN (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm just putting their info onto a new page and I'll be changing the roster to a table form. Is that a problem? Kingjeff 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I've already said on the FAID that I think it's fine the way it is. If you want to make such large changes to a page you should discuss them on its talk page first. CTOAGN (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey...yea, sure..i already added loads of info to the ballack page...will start working on the rest. Kinda crazy 12:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do I agree with you on archiving at BM? Well, there's a big pile of issues I've seen you in the thick of. At BM and the football collaboration page.
An easy one first. The numbers thing, whether it's 2 or two, forty-three or 43, doesn't really matter that much to me. Depends on what manual style you were weaned on I guess. Wikipedia's style guide gives soem decent direction, I was just looking to make a minor clean up. I was surprised the issue cropped up on the talk page, but whatever. It was a small step to tidying the article up.
Archiving? If people are whigning about stuff disappearing then just leave it be. There's not always a lot of joy in cleaning up after someone else. If it bugs another user enough they'll end up doing the dirty work. Right now it's just a hot button issue that people are sniping at you over, so I'd just let it ride for a while. No point in baiting the bear. Unless you're one of those compulsive types that lives in an excessively clean house ...
I'd get a grin on if it sat for a bit and someone piped in with "Hey. Kingjeff! When are you gonna clean this up?". Just leave it go and find some other way to chip it. It'll get sorted out and you come away with your nose clean. Besides, I don't see what you gain from it to make it worth a fight. Let some one else pick up. And no, I'm not annoyed over the archiving thing.
Voting? Changing the rules about how you vote, discounting votes in the middle of the thing and all the rest of that is just fundamentally wrong in any democratic process. If the vote process isn't working you rebuild it before trying again and deal with the guys who want to subvert the process before they hijack the thing. But at the end of the day getting wound up about something silly like what we're all going to work together on is bald face goofy. I've picked up on what I'm interested in and will be happy to contribute to any collaboration that does emerge if it interests me. The vote thing will get itself sorted out as the the forum matures. I saw vague signs of it drifting towards a "registered voter" thing where there were some sort of criteria allowing you to vote. That might work, but someone would have to manage it.
Too many nominations? Maybe. But it's like being a kid in a candy store surrounded by all kinds of goodies. You want to do it all, but you can't. You end up sick and not liking candy very much any more. So, yeah, I think some sort of moderation is in order. The three nomination limit might be a useful thing. It keeps people focused and acknowledges that we all have limits on our time. I I'm hopeful it would also contribute to there being enough bodies around to follow up on articles selected for collaboration are being properly tuned up.
Bayern Munich overall has me discouraged. OAlexander-En has hijacked the collabrative process and has been, at best, condescending towards me. There's a lot interesting information in there, but there's some clear problems with the language of the article. It's not the work of a native English speaker and it is turning into a dog's breakfast. In contrast I look at the football article on Arsenal, I think it is, which was selected as a feature article. It's concise, well written and organized, and looking at the history of the thing, is the result of a genuine collaboration. Have a read of it. Pretty much the opposite of what BM is shaping up into. I'm disappointed that no one else has piped up to let Oa know, gently or not, that we should all have the good grace to accept a helping hand when it's offered, especially when it's so badly needed.
So that's my view of what I can see/remember of your Wikiworld (?). Thanks for indulging me. I hope you find something useful in it all. In the meantime, go gently, be patient, treat others the way you would like to be treated, and help somebody write something cool! If I've been too windy, feel free to ignore me for the rest of your natural life. :) Patience Wiggy! 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the page was 32 kb, but there were still comments there that were only a few days old. You should wait longer, because it may take time for people to reply to those messages. If you don't mind me asking, why are you so hot to archive? Just try to be more patient with the archiving. I don't know if there are any hard-set rules, but I'd say wait at least a week. Try to err on the side of caution, and set bounds for yourself at something like 40kb and ten days. I know you are trying to do the right thing, but if you archive messages only three days old, people are going to get uptight. Archive too soon = people uptight = stress.
Try to use a little judgement, and if there's some sort of craving there to tidyup when it might be too soon, acknowledge and be conscious of that. Perhaps ask some kind person, "OK, I feel like archiving now, should I?" Perhaps their response might help you see and learn how ppl are seeing things. I'll be around if things really get rough over there, and I'll go check it out. Take care and hang in there. --DanielCD 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Is everyone ok with me archiving at this point? -- User:Kingjeff
That's the safest way. Better to have someone shout "No" than to put up with all the bull that comes after. And I think that's the best advice I can give. Even if you are feeling itchy, force yourself to make the header and ask the question. I hope thhis helps, good luck. --DanielCD 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll try. Give me a min to look at it. --DanielCD 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Kinda like a puzzle. That's about as close as I can get for tonight, buddy. I need to go to bed though before I fall out of my chair. If it's still messed up in the morning, I'll give it another try. --DanielCD 05:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I voted for your article, but I don't know if im eligible to vote there or not. Take it out if thats so, ha. Goodnight! --DanielCD 05:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kingjeff,
Just wanted to let you know that the Football Collaboration nomination templates go only on the talk page of the nominated article, not the main article page. Thank you. -Aabha (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
King:
I just responded to your message in WP:ANI but I wanted to leave a personal message here as well. Sometimes, in the spirit of WikiPedia, we need to leave our preferences aside and play by the "consensus" rule. WP is not exactly a democracy but when a group of people has a standard set of rules, is considered good manners to at least discuss changing them. I am not condoning Johan's message or "tone", I am actually trying to mediate a little bit to avoid any kind of escalation.
I think that if you accept the suggestions and try to work with editors instead of challenging them you'll find WP is a better place.
I hope you don't mind my intrusion here and you realize that this is just a friendly attempt at avoiding a confrontation.
Please feel free to check the message I left at Johan's talk page.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you like it! Poulsen 23:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
FC Dynamo Kyiv has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
hey, i guess i missed the deadline to vote for alan smith. have u seen the oliver kahn page? dont you think the 'ridicule' section is unnecessary? i've been trying to improve the page, but havent got much info. can you help? Kinda crazy 12:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Bobby Robson has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Check the TSV 1860 München page. There are now two stadium sections. Note that in the first the name of the stadium is used twice in two short sentences, which is awkward writing. The second uses the name once and a pronoun the next time which makes a smoother read. Fix your fix, please. Thanks. Wiggy! 00:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware of/have you been to the Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board? Wiggy! 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I was very confused at first but then saw that you were on the way of creating a German AID and guessed that you just edited the wrong page. -- Elisson • Talk 12:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 13% for major edits and 11% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)
This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Your bot just blanked my talk page. Kingjeff 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A.C. Milan has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
I'm just 10 years too young to really have seen him, a "real" best team would have Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Pele, Maradona, Van Basten and so on. I know fx Matthäus isn't much compared, but my only dilemma was Matthäus vs Deschamps.. I'm guessing your favourite 11 is the Bayern "Greatest Ever" team? ;o) Poulsen 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What was the first time you had a problem with the bot? Do you remember? Thanks. joshbuddytalk 20:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The bot registered you as blanking the page. This appears to have been a networking issue between the bot and wikipedia. I'm sorry it had to happen to you. This is the first time I've seen this issue. I don't know anything about mathbot and why it tangled with you, you'd have to take that up with whoever runs that bot. Again, sorry about that. If you have any more issues with Tawkerbot2, please let me know. joshbuddytalk 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ronaldinho has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
European Football Championship has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
I only took it up with you because you posted on the improvement drive, did not get a consensus or even a response, and went ahead to change things. No matter, I replied there. DR31 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I really thinks it looks bad. If you look at any good wikipedia articles, you don't see subheadings for 1- or 2- or 3-sentence paragraphs. And the manual of style advises against it. But ok, you think it looks good. I think it looks bad. Others seem to agree that there's no need for extra subsections. I mean look, if someone wants to write a long section (not just a few summarizing sentences, but some real content) on Giants Stadium, or RBNY supporters, then fine, let them write that section, and we'll add a header, according to both the manual of style and wikiproject:football. But for now, please let it be and let's stop this revert crap for both of us. Peace. DR31 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you telling me to add to it? I'll do if I feel like. I don't. DR31 (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I know a lot about MLS history, but since I am very biased against Metro, I don't want to write about other teams. I am sure a Crew fan will do a better job. Look man, let's just respect each other's work, ok? DR31 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The Metro/RBNY stadium situation is a pretty complicated topic. But if I have some time later this week, I'll try to write something worthwhile up and re-create the section, ok? DR31 (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Football in Germany has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Timeline of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
FC St. Pauli has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
What's up with all the empty subheaders? I can understand it on a form over substance basis, but it might be an idea to add some content to help flesh the articles out ... Wiggy! 22:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
History of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Reading F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
It's a short article with quite a few red links.
Please provide a reason for voting for it, otherwise no-one will. There are lots of short articles. Editing this article won't remove any red links. I couldn't bring myself to second a nomination like that, even I'd like to improve the article, which I would.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 19:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Heysel Stadium disaster has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Football in Norway has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
So as not to get into a revert war, please see Talk:2006 Memorial Cup for discussion. Thanks. BoojiBoy 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I only usually vote for things I'd be able to do quite a bit of work on. I don't know much about the Austrian national team, so I don't think I'd be able to contribute much. Oldelpaso 16:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
UEFA Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Watford F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
I suppose it'd be okay to update scores at halftime, provided that they're accurate. I don't think it's wise to have tons of people editing at once with all the edit conflicts. I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, though. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, don't know if this changed since you put the prods up, but the FIFA 2006 group articles have full team lineups, and more detal than the main article. I'm reomving the prods. Incidentally looks like you put the commnet on the article page for group H. Rich Farmbrough 22:35 15 June 2006 (GMT).
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group G, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup - Group G. If you remove the {{June 15}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
H was the same, you may like to review the others I've only seen about 4. Rich Farmbrough 22:49 15 June 2006 (GMT). Rich Farmbrough 22:49 15 June 2006 (GMT).
On group B you've done it wrongly. You need to subst the template. Rich Farmbrough 23:23 15 June 2006 (GMT).
Okay, Kingjeff, you can complete the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A. Melchoir 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for stating the obvious to you because you were just going on and on even though you were on a clear loser. My userpage gets vandalised because I am willing to stand up to morons who have no intention of making useful contributions to wikipedia. Your comment on my talkpage was a) a personal attack and b) ignoring your own conduct. You should examine yourself and then come back to me. Xtra 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
They are morons. Maybe if you want to comment you should look into what actually happened, or I might end up classing you in the same league. Xtra 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Netherlands national football team has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Nothing personal, but I was simply running through Special:Categories and cleaning up red links and happened to pass by. You might want to mention it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball, although it looks like they already know about you. Thanks for the offer anyways! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to ignore my comment, but I was serious. I did not, however, mean it as a personal attack, though I'm sure you must have felt piled on by all the comments on that page, and I regret using the word "idiotic". What I find upsetting is the overall trend I see of nominating for deletion articles with factual information that don't have anything seriously wrong with them, simply because they provide too much information. In my opinion, because this is not a paper encyclopedia, and because it is organized in articles that are easy to ignore by the uninterested, objective factual articles should be allowed to exist so long as people are willing to put in the effort to write them and verify their accuracy. (In my opinion, verifiability and NPOV are the bright lines that can be drawn around vanity articles, where the only source of information is the subject of the article.) Honest people can certainly disagree, but I really don't see the argument for deleting. --dreish~talk 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed by a margin of 54/6/1. I know this thanks is tardy, but it does take a while when you hand-craft your "thank you"s to your RfA. If you see me doing something I shouldn't in regards to my admin powers, please feel free to let me know. Thanks again Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
(from User:Pearle) I've noticed you did an edit on Kaká back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. There are also more articles you can do and you can nominate articles yourself.Kingjeff 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
UEFA Intertoto Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Indefinitely usually means never. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 30 for what's happening for the 1990,94,98 and 2002 templates. SLUMGUM yap stalk 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
As a foreign born player eligible to a UK passport, he is eligible to play for any of the 4 associations of the UK. It was on this basis that Wayne Allison played for N Ireland. If you have evidence to the contrary, rather than simply an assumption that he is only eligible for the place of birth of one or other of his parents, please present it. Kevin McE 21:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have also fixed up your user talk archives. Please do not go around creating pages in the User: space. All archives need to go in a subspace of your account using the "/". For proper archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thank you. Sasquatch t|c 14:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
FA Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
FA Cup Final has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
2006 FIFA World Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Thanks for uploading Image:1088610897588.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Juventus F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
FIFA World Rankings has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Dunga has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Ok, I agree, going down into the Oberligen would be near impossible to keep track of. What should the page be called? I was thinking 'German Regionalliga 2006/07' becuase it needs to be distinguished from its Austrian counterpart or maybe it would need to have a 'Fußball' prefix also?
I think the title is ok until someone creates an Austrian version then there might be some confusion, but other than that I think it works fine.
Well you never know, I mean I have created similar pages for the Slovakian league. Just wondering do you have MSN that I could talk to you over instead of this, would make things easier? --shanda 23:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've made league tables for the Regionalliga Nord and Süd 2006/07 I was wondering whether you think it would be a good idea to make a new page for these or if you think maybe it is a step too far and too much to update, they can be found here... User:Curswine/Sandbox/Regionalliga --shanda 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with it if you want to put the points at the front and bold them. With the way it was before I thought they'd get lost in the shuffle, but bolding should solve that. - Pal 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
That was some quick archiving! Yeah, the location of the points on those tables are fine. I'm not a big fan of the colors, but since you've put a lot of work into that page I'm not going to suggest any changes. - Pal 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I'm not exactly sure what you're after but you use this as a base and just change the links inside it. --shanda 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Bradford City disaster has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Kottaras Yeah, I should read up some more on things before I post on Wikipedia. I read that, then went to Redsox.com a bit later, and it said "Player to be named later", I went to edit it, but you already had. David Reject 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
To save you time and effort, you might want to find a source saying $1.7 Million for the List of Major League Baseball principal owners. Kingjeff 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. It was empty so far, excluding the headings. When you start an article, please have at least a little bit of information to begin with. --Gray Porpoise 15:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Spain national football team has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Please don't remove merge tags until discussions are complete. Consensus has not been reached on the subject and the merge tags indicate to other users that there is a discussion on the matter. - Pal 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll discuss it on the talk page. It just didn't seem worthy - it just looked like an ugly mess to me the way it was and the traditional table format is far more understandable. - fchd 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Garrincha has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
I don't have time to put them up anytime soon, I'm afraid, but you can find them here:. Lincolnite 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This is to inform you that the project page you created above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to follow the links on the project page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Ben Thatcher has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Just thought you'd like to know that I've created a new project to cover the history of Germany. It is currently on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects. I'm hoping that the formatting and, eventually, tighter goals will help this one take off. Just thought you might like to know. Badbilltucker 21:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, the project you created can be "recreated", and my apologies if it might seem to you that my own actions in requesting it's deletion was to "clear the way" for my own project, because that was not the case. You may notice that I have been nominating several single-member projects for deletion, not only yours, in the process of a task I am engaged in. However, I think that the page itself, in terms of content, etc., is at this point probably irretrievably lost. Knowing that, you would probably either have to retype the data, or, if you wanted, inform me of what the proposed central activities of the page were and I could try to create an approximation. My hope of the new project is that it function something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, and the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada, kind of a central base for a variety of projects and subprojects dealing with a rather large subject area. In fact, hopefully next week, after I finish the more detailed version of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory that I am currently working on, I'm hoping to spend a great deal of effort in trying to improve my proposed project page, particulary including a listing of all related projects. If you want to create an approximate project page for me to include a link to, or just me know what the contents and scope of the project are for me to create (probably in your userspace to more easily permit your own modifications), please let me know. I do think that having a kind of centralized location where all the projects related to the subject can "meet" is probably the only one which has proven to work when dealing with this large a subject, and if that is the kind of project you wish to "recreate" to supercede the one I have just started, you have my sincerest permission, agreement, and best wishes. In fact, I'd probably try to help you in doing so. I just hope that some project of the kind I proposed, headed by whomever, continues to exist, as it seems to me to likely be the only way available to deal with this large of a subject. And, if I failed to mention it above, my thanks to you for indicating an interest in the "umbrella" project on the proposal page. Badbilltucker 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:1088610897588.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. bainer (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall123 19:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for United advancing after losing their first 3 games? I'm going to have to delete it till I see a reference. Kingjeff 00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
For sorting. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. From the page:
Chanheigeorge 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lear 21 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vandalism,Wikipedia:Sock puppetry , Tagging identified sock puppets You will be reported!
Right now your vandalism is a nasty joke. But you are warned now twice to stop the nazi-vandalism on the Berlin Page. Otherwise this will be the end of your Wikipedia-career. Lear 21 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
By tomorrow you have restored the relevant parts. Further discussion only at :talk Berlin. Lear 21 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to apologize on the suspicion of socketpuppets. You are obviously not connected to the POV-Pushing authors. Thanks for cooperation on the issue. all the best Lear 21 09:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit rich considering your involvement with the German standings and stats. Or is there an inherent difference I'm not seeing? - Dudesleeper 11:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I just try to do what's correct about the current squad and tournament records. about the layout, i just try to maintain the germany national team to be the same with several others national team page. if you want to make the current squad under the players heading, thats fine, i wont change it back again. ~ Martin tamb 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that the Seattle Pilots came into existence before the Blue Jays, but that has nothing to do with this edit, which was clearly a discussion about the 1977 expansion. Mindmatrix 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
You did your best in requestion protection for this article in wikipedia:requests for page protection. But you forgot to sign like this: "--~~~~", because they would delete an unsigned request, seriously. --Gh87 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
all i want is fair treatment to all the players, anyway what do you have against huth? or do you love mertesacker that bad? you say world cup is not recent but you still put mertesacker on the list, isnt that unfair for huth? do you know that huth also suffer injury in pre-season that keep him out of german squad until october match? regular or not is not your call, its low's call, all i know is mertesacker recover before october internationals but still not called up yet, you call this a regular? also no harm in putting huth on the list, or also no harm could be done by deleteting both, as people could access them from the world cup squad. but to put just mertesacker is a biased opinion and i dont think this is what wiki about. anyway take a look on other national team page, they even put players that retired fully from football (Zidane) in the recent call up list, just for respect for them who played in the world cup
Seen any? I've got one featured :p . In terms of FAID nominations, I don't know whether much improvement would result if a stadium was selected. The last stadium related article to be selected, Bradford City disaster, attracted just 4 edits while it was the AID. If it was a stadium which had hosted the World Cup final or something, then sure, but in most cases it would attract more edits if it was the club article, of which a stadium section would be an important part. Some of the substub stadium articles would perhaps be better off merged with their club for now, though obviously this isn't an option for multi-use ones like the two you nominated. Oldelpaso 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Goalkeeper (football) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
Hi Kingjeff, I reverted your edits, so I thought I should explain myself - I did it for two reasons:
Regards, -- Chuq 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out.... ;-) (Quentin X 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC))
The removal of the 'recent call ups' on the German page has no bearing on the English national team page. As long as the section is properly maintained with agreed-upon guidelines etc., then there is no harm in it. --Robdurbar 17:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I reverted your edit. I did not oppose the inclusion of the quote, I was just trying to stop the revert war there. But now I think it's better to let the quote stays. And I just posted some thought on the talk page, maybe others user will understand about the inclusion of the quote. Martin tamb 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ciao! just posted request for advocation about the nth edit war started by User:Panarjedde, see here: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios
Help needed, maybe we'll be able to make him banned. --Attilios 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not subst this template, it creates a mess. Also, improvements to the template will not be seen on pages where it is substituted. Please just transclude it using {{WikiProject Germany}}. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm interested!!! I've produced some 5,000 quality edits for Italian articles, I don't know if anybody else here did something comparable. So, I'm willingful, good idea. Further, it could be a discussion table to finally define standards and gain consensus against prepotent user like Nehwyn and others, which are pratically controlling articles like Rome. I know a couple of other people who'll be surely interested, and there's already a WikiProject:Sicily ongoing from which we can draw people, perhaps. Let me know!! --Attilios 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's give him some rest. I seem it has behaved not so bad in the last times. I think more blatant crimes (3RR, disruptions, etc) should be found. Let me know. --Attilios 23:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the AMA case, I think a RfC could be appropriate. In order for this to be valid, the users certifying the complaint are required to demonstrate their attempts to resolve the dispute. In this context, I would suggest you leave a note on Panarjedde's talk page outlining in what areas he could improve. Thanks, Addhoc 14:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you realize that this image is a bad faith nomination by another user. Kingjeff 23:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't squabble with other users on my talk page... there must be better places to do it! Cheers, Proto::type 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
re:
My problem Panarjedde has been harassing and following my edits. He's always reverting something. As far as I'm concerned, he gaming the system and I can't assume good faith with him anymore. As far as the joke, it was their long before the advocacy request. (You know I didn't bring the Advocacy request up?) Kingjeff 18:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kingjeff, I haven't had time to analyse every single change in this edit, but many of your changes, such as "campaigns" to "Campaigns", "Socceroos" to "socceroos", and "and" to "&" are incorrect so far as style goes. Most of the other changes appear to be simply line breaks in references, which don't make a difference to the page in general. I'm going to revert the edit back, but if you feel that any of the previous editors changes are "bad faith" or vandalism, please feel free to change just the specific parts of the article that you have a problem with. -- Chuq 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to drag other people into this, but could you have a look at the discussion at Talk:Jake Daubert? I'd be most interested in additional opinions in the dispute between me and Tecmobowl as to the article content. MisfitToys 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you please buy me a plane ticket to Munich and a ticket to a Bayern Munich game. I would definitely love to go to a game. Kingjeff 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a small idea. Check out November results section in Serie A. We're now adding each table at the end of each round. Now, I know that a couple of tools who didn't care about football have banned creating seperate pages for Bundesliga results. I propose you use this collapsable template to put the results on the front page of the Bundesliga article ? Niall
From my perspective, the motives of the person who nominated the pictures is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the images fit within the image policy of this site and from the look of the DRV, it doesn't. Jimbo has asked us to be strict with images and I can't see any administrator restoring an image that has been correctly deleted on the basis that the nom was in bad faith. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi King! (or should that be Hi Jeff!). I’ve taken the liberty to make some edits to the draft Wikiproject page, even though it’s within your userspace. Please tell me to stop if you would rather sort it out yourself before moving it into the mainspace. I won’t remotely be offended. Cheers! —Ian Spackman 16:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be a good thing to add a copy of the emails in the talk page of this image.--Panarjedde 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed: go ahead and move it to its permanent place. —Ian Spackman 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be a good thing to add a copy of the emails in the talk page of this image.--Panarjedde 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you will have many people joining, if the proposed project is a redlink. Anyway if it goes ahead please don't use a banner, get it included in the Germany Project template as a parameter. Agathoclea 08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Any progress on this? I am interested in joining. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, there is too much to do with WikiProject Germany, so as to divert attention. Agathoclea 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Jeff, sorry, but I'm just too busy with other stuff to join right now. Maybe you could try contacting people in Category:User de? Khoikhoi 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for inviting me for the project, but I have to decline your invitation. I am not a German and I have very limited information about them. I'm only a football and motorsport fan. Maybe I can help if it is a Munich-born footballer or racer. But overall I don't think I can contribute much to the project as I am an Australian (actually I'm Chinese, but I was born and raised in Australia). Well if you ever need any help I'll try my best. Thanks. -- Martin tamb 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Old Firm has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
I am not sure I have enough time to run a section. But how can I help? Heikoh 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite but I think I would be concentrating more on WikiProject Germany and WikiProject France which we have recently proposed. Have a look at User:SlaveToTheWage/WikiProject France. STTW (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Er... no offense, but why? Why did you pick me to ask? I know nothing about Munich, and to be honest I'm not all that interested in the place anyway. I don't think I've contributed to any Munich related articles in the past, except reverting vandalism. The only connection I have with it is that I take GCSE German... I've never even been to Germany! The closest I've got is Belgium when I was three years old. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the offer. I'm still getting used to using wikipedia and such though, perhaps you could tell from my user page and lack of editing apart from spelling. Would be glad to help. Andevaesen
I think they will qualify. I took the templates from WikiProject Germany. I only took the ones that Ithought were worthwhile. Kingjeff 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I got so many messages and I didn't see yours until a day had passed since you messaged me.
Okay, I'll try adding references to Munich when I get some time. I don't think we need an ARD at the moment, since there aren't that many people in the project. I don't think it would be wise to start up the ARD until a month or two into the actual project, as I doubt anything will be done in there (this coming from my own personal dealings with WP:BBAID). Nishkid64 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Who are you exactly going to appeal to? Nishkid64 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you really must have templatisation on that fine-grained a basis (and tag things that are not primarily notable in regard to Munich), then I suggest the "resources" you're looking for are talk-page templates. Stub templates are supposed to follow certain guidelines, especially given that they appear in the article space, and aren't there purely for wikiproject convenience. Alai 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is considered to be poor form at best, and internal spam at worst. It's much better to simply post the message once, to a central location where all interested parties are likely to see it. Alai 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure that the absence of a stub template with only one or two articles it could apply to is necessarily preventing the project from accomplishing its goals, particularly if there is another template (the Munich-stub, which has been basically agreed to) which can achieve the same purpose. They would still be recorded as Munich stubs, after all, just not under the specific subgrouping. Also, unfortunately, the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub Sorting can hold a vote to delete what they see as excess templates anyway, even if they are created over their heads. Like I said, right now probably the best approach would be the least confrontational one. I'm pretty sure that they will agree to the basic Munich stub, (in fact, that they already have) and, once we see just how many articles it applies to, the members of the stub sorting project will themselves monitor it, like they monitor all stub categories, to see if its growth merits the creation of additional stub types. Also, if we see that we have 60 or more stub articles that fall within a specific grouping, we can propose the creation of a new stub template with a virtual guarantee of approval. Also, the majority of the rest of the city-scope projects already have only one stub, and they seem to be getting along fine. In fact, a few, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto, don't seem to even have one stub template. And, finally, whether the proposal of several templates is right or not, it probably would be a bad idea for the project to get on the bad side of too many people, like the people at stub sorting, this early in the game. I understand your frustration, but I think that right now taking the single stub they've basically agreed to will probably be the best idea. Badbilltucker 17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with having a {{Munich-stub}} that covers the entire WP:Munich, but I don't see why you need 8, especially considering that most of the categories are empty. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Badbilltucker 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but I don't feel I could contribute much since I know next to nothing about Munich. I may have edited one of the articles that fall under the scope, but it was probably cleanup/categorization/stub sorting. Crystallina 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You wrote:I think Ignore all rules policy is the policy that should be inforced here since the current stub rules prevent WikiProject Munich from improving and maintaining Wikipedia's Munich-related articles. That seems pretty obvious from your behaviour so far. However, if you check that page, you'll see that it says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." What you are doing is to the detriment of Wikipedia, since it is making it harder for others to maintain it. As such, I advise you to check out the pages linked from that page, such as Wikipedia:Use common sense. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: This seems like a personal attack to me.
Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Yes, I think it is important for encyclopedia articles to have references...particularily if there may be some disagreement or dispute regarding the content or tone. DPetersontalk 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Apologies - it seems as though I removed a genuine edit as well while removing some vandalism! Thanks for reverting it. User:EH74DK
Servus! I received your invite to took part to the Muenchen Project, I'd like to contribute, but frankly I don't know nothing about the city (apart Oktoberfest and that they are mostly Catholic). Anyway, ask help if you need something Italian related. In turn, I ask help you for translation of a short German passage added to Jungingen and which was not translated (if you've time, you can find it in the talk page of that entry). Good work! --Attilios 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ferenc Puskás has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
thanks for the invitation to help WikiProject Munich, I will try to assist in any way possible.
--Jadger 14:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome, Kingjeff, to the WikiProject Germany! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on Germany-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject Germany}}. A few features that you might find helpful:
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Here are some tasks you can do. Please remove completed tasks from the list.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Kusma (討論) 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, thanks. I wasn't good at referencing either, but I read WP:CITE and I picked up some good info. I'm doing some AWB cleanup first, but then I'll get to each individual article and check out their situation. Nishkid64 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
unfortunately, mein deutsch ist sheiße, but I am learning, so I may be able to help in a limited way on translations in the future. I will do everything in my power to add to our articles, I have already noticed the 2001 Champions League stub, and was looking as to whether we can imbed youtube on the wiki, but from what I read in discussions i guess not. I was wondering that because here is a video of the penalty shootout.
--Jadger 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's quite useful to have a list of the mayors with the dates when they were in office, party affiliation, etc.--Boson 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't know very much German though I'm afraid but I'm sure I can contribute in some other way :) Any particular images we're after?
Mats Sweden
Unfortunately, no. We must periodically unprotect the page every few weeks or months, just to see if the article is fine again. Although it doesn't work for all articles, it is sometimes effective in preventing future vandalism. Nishkid64 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but at the moment I'm immersed in too many other groups in wikipedia to join the Wikiproject Munich group. Also, I feel as though I need to know something on the topic or a substantial base of info so that I could actually contribute to the articles instead of wikignome which is not my forte. Thank for you the invitation though and best of luck in the future. - Patman2648 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and most of my contributions till now were mainly related sports. I would require guidance from other members to contribute positively to this project. So, if that is OK then, I am ready to sign up - Tirupraveen 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) The situation on the Hargreaves page is in danger of getting silly. The article had, for several months, stated, correctly, that any of the Home Nations could have approached OH. The other day, an anonymous editor, one whose talk page reveals a history of vandalism, changed it without giving any reason. You now seem to suggest that there is more of an onus on me to prove the previous status quo of the article than there is on you to defend your point of view. I have given reasoned argument, although I have not been able to cite a source: you have given no reason more substantial than "I don't believe you". You prove on what grounds he was eligible for Wales: you prove why a UK passport holder can be prohibited by FIFA from representing Scotland or Northern Ireland. More specifically, why should Hargreaves be subject to restrictions that did not apply to Pat ven den Hauwe, Jeff Whitley, Tony Capaldi or Maik Taylor? Until then, I revert the page to its status for several months. Kevin McE 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The players I have named were born in, respectively, Wales, Zambia, Norway and Germany. Although they had, or at some point acquired, eligibility for UK passports, I do not believe that any of them had any parental links specific to Wales (in the case of van den Hauwe) or Northern Ireland (for the other three). Because they had UK passports, and had not played a full international for any other team, FIFA had no grounds for refusing them the right to play for any side for which the nationality criteria is UK citizenship. You have already acknowledged that there is no substantive difference between their circumstances and that of Owen Hargreaves. You have not established that anything otherwise is the case.
I am at a loss as to where you think that I suggested that you were "backing up" FIFA: I had your comment that "FIFA is not reasonable" when I referred to your prejudice about that organisation.
Your initial edit comment in this thread was "I can't see FIFA letting him play for Scotland or even Northern Ireland for that matter": this sounded very much like assumption, and yet now, without providing a single reasoned argument, you are rebutting every point I make as though you speak with authority on the matter. You are trying to make a revision of a statement that had stood unchallenged for several months on the article in question: it is incumbent upon you to prove your case. Kevin McE 00:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Italy national football team has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
It does look as though that's the only option, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I felt there should be some mention of BMW's darker side during WWII.
...is going on at Talk:List of MLB seasons#Split the YYYY in baseball articles?. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Formation (football) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
see here for a recent update. Could you do me a favour and keep a close eye on changes in playernames in the various clubs and let me know when the vandal hits any clubs that I don't have watchlisted or while I am off-line. If the vandalism pattern isn't clear to you let me know and I'll explain. Agathoclea 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I had absolutely no part in creating that template. I think it is very huge and hard to edit, read, display, and print. I assume whoever created it just wrote "For usage, see Template talk:16TeamBracket" because they based it off of Template:16TeamBracket (which is what I created) without giving much specific.
I assume the template parameters are the same:
Sorry, if I am not more helpful, but I find it very hard to edit, it is not used, and should have been deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe the scandal is mentioned in the main page Juventus F.C.. Juveboy 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither the 1930-31 and 1988-89 pages are up to scratch at the moment - both need completion of all the tables and removal of all the filler data (as well as sorting out that nav template at the bottom). The pages 1930-31 in English football and 1988-89 in English football are on the other hand have complete league tables and thus provide more information than the Football League ones do. As I said in the edit summary, once a substantial number (you have only created two out of ten) of Football League season articles exist and they are all in a complete state then it'll be fine to link to them - until then it's best to link to the next best thing. Arsenal F.C. is a featured article and I don't like it linking to under-construction pages when there are existing complete and well-formed alternatives. Qwghlm 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite understand why you reverted all my edits on the Stephan Furstner article this morning. To summarise my reasons for these edits:
I can understand why you wouldn't want the stats box removed, and I'm happy to compromise on that, providing people are willing to update it. But I don't get why everything else was reverted. ArtVandelay13 16:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Bayern Munich has children as young as 8 or 9 in their youth system. You might want to look at Bayern Munich Junior Team.
Why remove fussballdaten.de? It was under external links. Not under references.
They play in the Regional Third Division, which is a high level of senior football. Well, this is still not a career for Bayern Reserves. We both know that every member of the reserves wants to play for the 1st team.
For players with a middle name. Are you saying he doesn't have a middle name?
Please do not touch my user page. Any edit to my user page is not a useful edit. Kingjeff 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but from my own interactions with User:David Levy I happened to notice your talk. You might be interested in joining the discussion he made reference over here or here. If you'd rather not be bothered anymore with this I invite you to either just revert this talk or straight archive it. Cheers. (→Netscott) 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you made a 5 round tournament bracket. Is it possible you can make a 6 round bracket? Kingjeff 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That's contain a semi-vandalism. I mean if the change have to make THERE, all sub-articles have to change too, i.e.: Hamburg has contained in the third qualifying round, why don't delete that link in Group Stage? Another thing, if the changes make there, all title about UEFA Champions League and European Cup have to change - from 1955-56 to 2005-06. It is not a good idea to delete that link. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I added back the piece of trivia stating Kaka is of Portuguese decent that you had removed with the reason given "That's obvious since he's Brazilian". Most Brazilians are not of pure Portuguese decent and many not at all. Check the Demography section of Brazil, many immigrants especially the poorer members of the population are either indigenous Indians or descendants of slaves who were brought over by the Portuguese from Africa. I think this information is actually quite relevant to the article as other football players from Brazil such as Ronaldo are not of Portuguese decent and grew up in the favelas. Ronaldo especially did some work to help the shanty towns of Rio de Janeiro.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I have only been to Brazil once, but when I went I really got the impression there was a huge status difference in between people of different decent. --Jackaranga 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Something's wonky with the redirect template. Go to [Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 4|this page]] for the Boston redirect discussion.--Bobblehead 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have removed the FC Bayern Munich logo from your userbox for FC Bayern Munich fans, as fair use images should not be in the template namespace. Plus, I have replied to your WP Munich comments. Thanks. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be glad to, what do you think i should start doing first? -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for the invite to join WP Munich. At this stage i'm going to have to say "thanks but no thanks" I'm working on getting the various german football stadium pages up to scratch and it's a much bigger task than I first though. Thanks again, the invite is much appreciated.Tancred 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there--I'm seeking volunteers to help enforce the community ban on Panairjdde. I know that he's frequently crossed your path while editing, so I thought you might be interested. Drop by the page. Thanks! Dppowell 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kingjeff. I have accepted your invotation to the with pleasure and I feel honoured to have to have received it in the first place. Of course I did not do this lightly, as my experiences o the field of german soccer tell me that there are some users about that remind me of Iggy Pop and think that they have all the wisdom.
I am sure, we can demonstrate competence, strength as a group and that type of fotitudes, which will surely bring forward Munich realted articles and Wikipedia as a whole! Mye heart is definitelyu in it! After all, I have lived in that city for a good part aof my life and received even my priomary education there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oalexander-En (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
maybe we should clarify and define what each section is, because I don't know which one I think I'd fit in. I watch the Bayern Munich related articles because I'm a fan, and edited the Munich Barons article (because I'm Canadian, lol) but other then that I don't see much else I would be helpful with.
--Jadger 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I reported your edits on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Feel free to comment. Balcer 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You have been reported for 3RR violation on Talk:Karlovy Vary and I have blocked you for 1 week, as this is part of an ongoing pattern of editwarring and 3RR violations, based on your block history. Please note that the 3RR policy does not depend on the merit of the edits - it is a simple mathematical rule that says you can't revert more than 3 times per 24 hours. Kingjeff, please take the time off to carefully review our WP:3RR policy and to reflect on your future conduct here. You can decide to edit collaboratively, observing 3RR limits, or you can continue to violate the policies and be blocked for progressively longer periods of time, eventually permanently. I sincerely hope you make the right choice. Thanks, Crum375 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kingjeff (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
A one week block is really to harsh here. If you take a look here, here, here, here and here then you'll see that I have tried to do this sensibly. As far as my history with 3RR, you can look here and here, you'll see that I was reported by User:Panarjedde. If you look here here then you'll see that he was a banned user at the time that he reported me for those 2 3rr violations. If you look here, you'll see that User:Jayjg, a Wikipedia admin, agrees with those blocks being erased off my record.
Decline reason:
You seem to be confusing content and conduct. No one reviewing your block cares if you were right or wrong on content. You need to break out of the mentality that if you are right on content, you can do whatever you want to keep it at "the correct version." It doesn't work that way here. You revert more than three times, you lose your editing privileges for a specified amount of time. You have been told this numerous times, but it seems like you don't get it. Instead of complaining about how harsh the block is (it's not harsh, actually, this was supposed to happen quite a while ago), perhaps you should learn the art of discussion and civil argument instead of blindly reverting. If you were right (or if you are convincing enough), naturally people will support you. — 210physicq (c) 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Can I have an admin who will look into my case? I don't know why others are getting their appeals heard and not mine. Kingjeff 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But the 3rr blocks was clearly about the ban user. I don't see how you can justly do this for a week. Kingjeff 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that who ever the admin is in looking at my appeal looks at the comments about the length of the block here. Kingjeff 17:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't force anything on anyone. In fact, it was User:Balcer forcing it on everyone else. The point I was trying to point out to Balcer is that it should stay up until a consensus is finalized. here is the proof of that. If you look here and here, you will see that other members in the debate agrees with me over this issue about the tag remaining until a consensus is finalized. Kingjeff 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Kingjeff (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The admin from the the appeal made the error of not looking at all the evidence. Most of the users who have spoken up says this punishment is too harsh. Physicq210 says I "should learn the art of discussion and civil argument instead of blindly reverting." What does he think happened before the block?
Decline reason:
It appears that this is your eigth block, your fourth for engaging in edit wars. It is standard to continue to extend each new block as the previous blocks clearly didn't teach the user anything. Maybe a week long block will this time. Denied. — IrishGuy talk 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
WikiProject Germany says, "This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Germany, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Germany in a fair and accurate manner."
Based on this and the comments that have been posted, this article seems to have a place in WP Germany. Not in a geographical sense like WikiProject Czech Republic but in a historical sense. Since there is sense before Germany became a nation in January 1871 and from a historical standpoint you would definetly have to consider German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Kingjeff 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. You are right, and I will be more careful with formatting from now on in the game logs. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah? And I think New York City is in New Hampshire. It doesn't matter what you think. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/game log. And all other articles. They are all like that, so the Orioles' article needs to be like this also. And besides, it looks all weird if there's some blue font and some black font. --22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003
I don't think he'll be back on this article until I do something to this article. But I'll revert anything he does. Kingjeff 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Give me a good reason why you are not leaving any more, and I will leave.--81.211.198.6 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't mean to sign up for the project and then disappear, life's just been a bit crazy lately. I've been meaning to start taking pictures of less-traveled areas for use in articles about all the parts of town. Hopefully I'll have time soon! --Pete 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I was reading your discussion with Ksy92003, to decide whether I would want to report your 3RR violation on that template page. But I think that I do not actually care about that template. I see that I failed to convince you that me and Panairjedde was a different user, well I couldn't care more about this. But one suggestion, if you reverting, do revert to a correct version, cause Italy NEVER has blue away shirt. 121.44.226.60 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the games from [[Minnesota Twins|Twins]] to [[Minnesota Twins|Minnesota]]? And its not just you, Ksy has gotten real bossy about another small thing with an anon. But please keep the style of the articles the same until a agreement is meet. I dont really have a problem with only having one wikilink per series, but dont change the Yankees to New York (AL) since the other 29 articles will say Yankees. ---CWY2190TC 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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! HagermanBot 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
RFCU decisions are final. It's no big deal, though. There are other ways to prove sockpuppetry aside from RFCU. Dppowell 02:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Chensiyuan 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! I have joined the project. I'm already underway with translating Munich based stuff. :) Regards, WilliamH 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to update the standings every day. Hornberry 15:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Please come join the WikiProject Ice Hockey Notability standards for hockey players discussion. I'd like to see input from all our project members who have an opinion. Thanks! ColtsScore 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When Ballack was born in 1976, Görlitz was officially a city in German Democratic Republic. This was the official name of the country and East Germany was informal.
Norum 05:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Germany WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - May 2007 | |
This is the first issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. |
Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).
|
All of our B-Class, Start-Class and Stub-Class articles now need to be checked whether they meet any of the B-Class criteria. This is a major effort, and we need your help! If you want to help, but don't know how, please post at the project talkpage.
A task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities has been started and is looking for help. |
This newsletter was delivered by Kusma using AWB to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kusma 11:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, he's around. I just came back from a wikibreak, and haven't had the time lately to go chasing after him. He's not the sort of guy who's going to quietly go away on his own. I'm sure he's editing, and when I have some free time, I'll find him. In the meantime, as long as he's not starting major trouble, I'm not too concerned. Dppowell 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you be willing to add your support to the nomination of Derry City F.C. for FA status? Cheers. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with using the word "reportedly"; see definition:. Using the word "reportedly" does not imply it is a rumour when the statement is backed up with a reliable source, in this case a BBC article. To stop this from escalating into an edit war, I have removed the word "reportedly" from the article. Are you happy with the line as it is phrased currently, or do you still want to remove it? Dave101→talk 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but I'm currently watching the game on TV on ARD and following their ticker - and it says those times. But I'm not worried about any minor differences. - 52 Pickup 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean you are from Canada or what am I overlooking here? Malc82 15:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
What's going on there? --Guinnog 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
How exactly was my edit to James Beattie vandalism? I made a mistake in the coding, so you go and brand it as vandalism? I was infact fixing that and updating his stats while you were reverting my "vandalism", so there was an edit conflict. Mattythewhite 17:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Owen Hargreaves. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. robwingfield «T•C» 23:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the acceptance. But I can't edit because my IP Address is still blocked. Kingjeff 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.