Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Mais oui!20:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease your personal attacks against other users at once, none of the content here is your personal property to do with what you will. You can clearly see (all of the text above this point) why your edits are being reverted, and why they will continue to be reverted. Your changes to Burghead constitute vandalism. Fraslet22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Place of Birth (UK).png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Burghead age Structure 1.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Age Structure 1.png. The copy called Image:Age Structure 1.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Burghead Primary School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. B. Wolterding17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion on the UEFA Cup 2007-08 talk page regarding the usage of "Club X/Club Y" or "Winner Match Z". I would appreciate if you would explain your reasoning why "Club X/Club Y" is better there. Cheers. – PeeJay23:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should invite you to present your side of the argument, and me mine, lest we start a revert war over style here? Simply put, my view is that I'm not sure that your edits here are actually constructive to the articles, although the code is impressive. While I favour people who attempt to make Wiki better with the use of code, that philosophy doesn't mean that I think that all code should be included. Basically, I'm just not sure what your code actually adds to the Wiki. As stated rather rushedly in my edit descriptions, each article that your code will feature on already has several links to each team. I believe one of the Wikipedia principles advocates (though not quite demands) that each article is only linked to once on any other article, unless it interferes with the style of the article. This excuses the use of multiple links for the fixtures list, say, but since there is no established precedent for making flags into links to article pages, that argument can't really be used to support your code. Being able to click a flag and reach the national team page is quite frankly unnecessary given that the links already exist in the standings table, and numerous other places besides. Also, remember that images are supposed to link to their image page, so that anyone intending on using the image can quickly find the proper page name and such. By diverting that link to the national team articles, you are getting in the way of that purpose. I wonder how many people would even think to use the flags to direct themselves to the national page articles, especially given this unwritten rule of Wiki images, and the fact that so obvious an alternative link to those articles are sitting there a few centimetres away to the left. Even if we ignore the previous arguments and imagine it fitted with the style, I still find myself left thinking "would anyone actually think to use those links, yourself aside?" And I have to say that unfortunately, I just don't think that anyone would.
This is, of course, not supposed to be a rant, so I invite you to reply to my comments with your own justification for your actions. Falastur2 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but it's part of the way that Wikipedia runs, that images link to their page. Some Wikipedians are on the alert for non-fair use images, others don't know the name of the image and don't understand the code to find the page in there, others just want the ability to view the image in proper size. It's for these reasons and others that it is generally accepted that Wiki images link to their info pages. Falastur2 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding them. It does not look neater in my opinion, so this will just end up descending into an edit war. Perhaps a third party's opinion should be sought. – PeeJay02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution to the Managers table - I'm not sure I prefer the look of the flags like that (my template was the similar table in the Liverpool F.C. article), but I'm prepared to accept that it may improve page loading. That aside, I'd be interested to understand your rationale for removing my time-specific introduction. I feel it is important to identify that data is not correct to the most recent game - in fact, I don't believe that the main article is the proper place for that, and updating it once a year, or at the change of manager is more appropriate. Watty1962 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Artyom (talk • contribs) 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second the above motion. I reverted your recent change to 2000 because without an edit summary, it looked like vandalism. After I did more digging, I was able to figure out what you were doing. I liked it, so I put it back the way you had it. If you had given me a hint by jotting an edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted your edit in the first place. Sorry. Art Smart (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted this sometime ago and being a lazy sort, I hoped somebody would get them deleted — but nothing happened so I have finally nominated them. On looking at the list of settlements in Moray, there is scope for a few more deletions too. Burghead's fairly coming on, btw. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk09:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like once created we're stuck with them. Stotfield stays. The guy who created the Unthank removed my tag so I'll have to take to AfD if I want to get rid of it. Probably go the same way as Stotfield. Unthank never ever was a village and his co-ordinates point this ghost village to a ploughed field. Anyway, I don't think these non-villages should be left. I'll have another go and see what happens. Cheers, Bill Reid | Talk17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you have been using bold formatting within the {{RankedMedalTable}}s on a handful of Olympic articles. The consensus we have at WP:WikiProject Olympics is not to do that, so your changes would be inconsistent with more than a thousand other instances where those tables are used. I would also say that it is contrary to WP:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface, which states that boldface should only be used in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses: • Table headers • Definition lists (but, perhaps implied, not table contents).
Also, I saw that you have added the event navbox on some of the main pages (e.g. putting {{BadmintonAt2004SummerOlympics}} onto the top of Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics). Again, that is not the consensus style we have. The "details" wikilinks within the medal summary table serves that purpose. The problem with putting the event navbox on the top level page in addition to all the event pages is that some of those boxes are quite long, and that interferes with the layout of the medal summary table on displays of 1024x768, which we still need to consider, unfortunately, even in this day of larger SXGA or widescreen displays!
Is it true that domestic cup winners take preference over league positions for UEFA Cup entry? I always thought it was the other way around. Kingjeff (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Dumfermline were the losing cup finalist and not the winner. Losing finalists get the worst entry point because, well, they haven't technically earned it as such. The regs] explain that part, but the priority of places awarded isn't explicitly explained. CW places are definately given out first if it makes a difference in entry point, and I swear i remember examples when it hasnt made a difference and the CW is given out first. I'll dig around for my own curiosity and let you no if I find anything solid. :) Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I heard that they're not letting any losing cup finalists qualify anymore because the lower quality teams keep balls-ing up the league co-efficient in Europe. The winners still qualify though because UEFA rules say that national cup winners have to qualify before other teams. Plus to actually win the Cup you'll have proved yourself to be a decent team anyway.Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer of help with the tables in Scottish League Cup 2003-04 article. I think that I have managed to work out how to create the tables but would you be able to help with some of the information so I don't have to do it all myself. Thanks. 92.4.52.195 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason behind your removal of these categories from some club-season articles? It seems inconsistent, since you only removed 2007 from Blackpool's 2006-07 article when there's also 2006. - Dudesleeper / Talk09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found this [1]. Apparently the attendences i've added don't match with the ones given on livescores.co.uk which is a bit of a pain. Exxy (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched high and low for official stats but the only things I found where the one livescores ones and the ones you found. To be honest, I thought the livescores attendances where a bit dodgy and what with the vitalfootball attendances matching up with the stats I put in earlier, perhaps we can assume that vitalfootball are correct? Exxy (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the fixtures and results section, I can concede the flags, however if you look at the previous season (Aberdeen F.C. season 2007-08) and if you look under the results section on that, that is what I am trying to emulate. It may look plain and boring now, but I can assure you that it will look far better than a table.
Also, please keep the squad and player statistic tables at the top, it looks better, the SPL compilation thing should be at the bottom. Thomasmackat41 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll offer you a deal. I'll leave the results and fixtures thing to you, if I can do the player and club information, statistics etc. And I won't put in the 'cards and goals table.' I think that's fair? Thomasmackat41 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any information which could be of use to allow me to complete this article to the same standard as the one for Scottish League Cup 1996-97.
Can you desist from adding English placenames to the Scottish placename lists. This is not what they are about at all. You might as well add a list of Mongolian placenames in China to the template... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Actually found this wasn't you directly, but some of the edits before you... apologies!
Would be interested in your thoughts on the external links areas of these pages in general though, since most of the links I add seem to be removed... seeking your input on why, they are valid and potentially useful! Degsydegsy (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts on the external links, I am trying to update Wikipedia to include links to various websites as Scottish football isn't something that a lot of sites talk about - I also look after one site that does, so I'm trying to be as objective as possible!
I feel statistics are a really hard thing to do on Wikipedia as it doesn't make it easy for you, and there are better places to do this, but I'm trying to find people who think the same and can help me do this. Thanks for your input and hopefully over time things will become more clear with regards to Scottish football on wikipedia Degsydegsy (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping we could try to resolve this via discussion, though admittedly the time to do that was before the edit war started, not after. Sorry about that. Hopefully it's not too late to start. Anyway, my position is that the article should use the full name of the club minus the F.C. as that is what is done for every other club. There is no reason not to, especially since the SPL is smaller than most leagues so we don't have width problems in things like the results table and whatnot. As for the results table, the Premier League, Champions League, UEFA Cup, and many other articles use a 3 letter code for teams, mostly following from the country codes that are used in international football (though they have been replaced by flags in most articles). I think that this should also be done in the SPL articles. There should definitely not be something like "Hearts" used, as it doesn't look at all like the rest of the abbreviations (3 or 4 letters). Also, in almost every article with a top scorers list, we only include the top 10 plus ties, this keeps the table from getting too long and disorganized. I'm just trying to bring some consistency and uniformity to the article that was sorely lacking. Hope we can work this out in a civil way. Have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying so quickly. I think that one of the things the WT:FOOTY community should try to focus on is building consistency from year to year and within articles. I think that it looks strange for every team except ICT to get their full name, when ICT has to abbreviate. They don't have that long a name and it is only slightly longer than Hamilton Academical. As for the width of the results table collumns, I agree that would be better if they were changed to have a standard width. I realize that the collumns are very slightly different widths, but for now I think it's really not that bad. I think that it is more important for consistency between the different football articles to have 3 letter codes. Also, if someone is unclear, they can either click the link to see who the club is or simply mouse over it to see the article name pop up. I don't think it is that much of an issue. Anyway, thank you for discussing, and I look forward to working with you on improving the article in the future. Have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WT:FOOTY#Continute on the Football box start discussion for discussion. From what I can divine of your edit summaries (very little), you suggest that the old format is "non-hideous", or even "user-friendly". Considering that the football project is the only one which uses this format for its navigation templates (and even then not consistently), this wouldn't seem to be a common sentiment. In future, do you mind following up with comments when making reverts like that? Doing so without even an edit summary is something which should only be expected from crude vandalism, which this obviously wasn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Fb round 2009-10 UCL QR2NC, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RaymondGiggs05:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Aberdeen F.C. league positions 2008-09.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Aberdeen F.C. league positions 2008-09.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Thanks for the advice concerning the Scottish Football Historical Archive site, its much appreciated! Ill try and work on building up the Scottish Cup season articles over time, and try to add stub articles (maybe more) for the clubs in due course. If you can suggest anything else, or any other resources, just leave a message! Again, much appreciated. Macarism (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
Your upload of File:Burghead age Structure 1.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)14:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Burghead may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
2 May 2007|publisher=Bannfshire Journal|accessdate=2 October 2009}}</ref> and FC Burghead <ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.stv.tv/north/97975-community-cup-final-brings-unknown-territory-for-two-
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk)09:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF
Stats-only article that does not meet WP:NSEASONS criteria for presumed notability and there is nothing remarkable enough about this season to suggest a WP:GNG pass either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and routine transfer coverage and match reporting does not amount to passing GNG.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Burghead may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Template:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)