User talk:GilbertoSilvaFan/Archive 1

This is a dump of all old conversations. My talk page isn't busy enough to need several archive sections, rather, it is static enough to need out of date conversation archived. This is my museum. Admission is free.

Welcome!

Hello, GilbertoSilvaFan/Archive 1, 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:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! RJFJR 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva

On the Gilberto Silva article, the "soccerbase.com" external link (to here) provides up-to-date stats. As the Infobox says, "Professional club caps and goals counted for the domestic league only," only the 100+6 appearances are to be included, plus his 6 league goals.
Slumgum 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks mate. I should have read the infobox notes properly. On a related note, if you know of a site which can provide a usable Gilberto photo, I'd love to hear of it. GilbertoSilvaFan 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva Question

- Does the Gilberto Silva article still count as a stub? As far as football bio's go, I think it's pretty complete.

- Can I upload a photo of Gilberto ripped from a video of a recent game? The original video was recorded from a French TV broadcast.

Thanks, Gilberto Silva Fan 10:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva is definitely not a stub. The TV station will own copyright on the image, and it's unlikely that a fair use claim would be legal.--Commander Keane 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme - image follow up

A follow up from my second question earlier; is this image quality too poor for Wikipedia? http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4554/gilbertosilva5zb.png There should be no problems with copyright, since I took the photo at a match. Thank you, GilbertoSilvaFan 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any image is better than no image, so we should include that one. Since it's yours and you will be releasing it under a free licence, upload it to the Commons so other Wikipedias can use it too.--Commander Keane 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest a Licensing type to use? "Own work, all rights released (Public domain)" seems correct, but I want to upload it so that Wikipedians have the most freedom when using it. Thanks again GilbertoSilvaFan 14:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the licence you have selected give the most freedom possible. Commons:Copyright_tags has a full list of the licences, GNU Licenses are also popular.--Commander Keane 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva

I took it whilst in North London.--Andeh 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but I mean where in North London? Like, training ground or some public place? Cheers. -GilbertoSilvaFan 11:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I spotted him during a modelling photo shoot in a park. The black bit next to him in the photo is me. :)--Andeh 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'm very jealous. =)

I can believe that. Nice work on the article.--Andeh 07:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto detailed stats

The Arsenal stats match soccerbase's. I don't know if the Brazilian club stats are reliable, but they don't look right to me. Do you think they're complete? The article text says he resumed football in 96, but the stats start from 97, and only total 47 appearances in 5.5 years in Brazil before joining Arsenal, including 0 games in two different seasons at America. Thats looks suspicious to me. The article also says he joined Athletico and got injured in 2000, so that may explain just 3 games played. In total it says 27 (3) for Athletico, which looks like it may be correct, but I can't say for sure. In my opinion the stats don't look trustworthy, although I can't find any other sources which contradict them. SLUMGUM yap stalk 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points all sound right, I think I'll leave it til I find another source which agrees/disagrees. Thanks very much for your help. --GilbertoSilvaFan 00:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bong

you're right, thanks for the notice. ReverendG 18:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Arsenal images

As seen at Wikipedia_talk:Publicity_photos#This_page_is_dangerous, Jimbo Wales has indicated that such images are not sutiable for Wikipedia ("dangerous"). I expect that in the long term the images, like the one you mention of Gilberto Silva, will be deleted.--Commander Keane 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lagao da Prata

Thumbs up!

Without looking, I knew instantly who'd turned Lagao da Prata from a red link to blue. Keep up the good work.
sʟυмɢυм • т • c 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if www.lagoadaprata.com is a reliable source - I can't read Portuguese! It's okay to base the article on that website, but it looks like it's just a tourism site, so there might not be very much useful info. You should probably try to read through the lines and work out what are facts and what is advertising. Perhaps there are some online travel guides which can provide you with more unbiased/factual info, or you can try the Portuguese wiki article, although I'm not sure if it provides any more info than lagoadaprata.com. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva rating

Hi! What I meant with my comment was that it needs much work to go higher than GA-class, I expressed myself a little bit unclear. I saw it was up on GA nomination, but I am not very good at judging which articles are GA-class and which are not, so we'll have to see if it is good enough already. However, to be rated even higher, that is, A- or FA-class, it needs a lot of work, more text, incorporation of the trivia and court cases in the main text body, and just general fixes. See Denis Law for an example of a FA-class player article. Hope this helps a little. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva

I noticed that there have been many improvements to the article. However, the early life section could use expanding. After this, check that it is factually accurate, verifiable, and npov (see WP:WIAGA), and then you (or I or someone else) could nominate it for good article candidacy. If it succeeds, the class could be upgraded to GA.

However, for now, the next highest class is A-class, and I'm not sure this would qualify. So I recommend trying the above. Hope everything goes well. Green caterpillar 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

No problem :) I hate it when people don't give pointers on how to improve, so I'm glad it is useful! Poulsen 05:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I'd generally say that if you can't work it into the article then it doesn't belong. Here's a discussion on the subject that basically comes to the same conclusion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#.22Trivia.22_heading. Another reason for getting rid of is that it is an easy target area for people to dump "facts" that they heard a friend of friend down the pub mention maybe was true - I'd think an article on a premiership footballer would be a prime target for this sort of "improvement". Yomangani ^talk 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club statistics

I only meant the club statistics should be merged, just like you have done it. I can't think of a way to improve what you have already done :D Poulsen 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silva

Fair point! Ok! Keep it for now. If you later nominate your article for FA (I don't think for GA this is a problem) and you face criticisms you'll see what you can do. My only concern is that, since you've already mentioned all the details of this text in the main text, then this section might be redundant. But, as I told you I donot think this is a major issue, at least now. Is there any article for a footballer FA? A don't know. But if there is, you could get some ideas. Regards!--Yannismarou 07:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! By the way, the lead needs to be expanded a bit more (just one or two more sentences - not many words) to summarize the article.--Yannismarou 07:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it looks very nice to me. When I read it in detail (lign by lign), I'll comment also on the prose, although, since I'm not a native English speaker, I connot be the best judge in this domain. I still think you could expand a bit the lead. My conclusion is that you are ready for Good Article Candidacy and, then, we can discuss again about FAC (Feautured Article Candidacy).--Yannismarou 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prose is fine for a GA. This phrase needs citations: "Brazil were beaten 1-0 by France in the quarter final, but most pundits said that Gilberto had a solid tournament." "Most pundits" without any inline citation at the end of the sentence is regarded as weasel word.--Yannismarou 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could include some things about his early life and some more things about his career. Just make a good summary of the article. You could double the size of the current lead without any problem. Just, be careful and don't go to the other side! Don't make it fool! Peer-reviews are always a nice thing! After all what we do now is an informal peer-review!--Yannismarou 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Print References

I don't know how many you should put in, if you look at a lot of the other featured articles & candidates for youngish people then a lot of them actually have very few print references. In general though I'd suggest that most sport books are probably better researched than the average newspaper/website sports article which often seem to have a lot of speculation. For someone who plays for Arsenal I'd suggest that there should be quite a lot of books around that you could look at. Arsene Wenger must have a biography or 2, Ashley Cole has one out at the moment, probably some more of the current or recent Arsenal players will have them too. There must also be yearbooks about recent Arsenal seasons. Any of these could be good sources for Gilberto Silva info. Try your local library! JMiall 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about Gilberto stat

Hi, it's nice to meet fellow football fans.

About Gilberto's caps, I also use the same source as you from sambafoot.com, however, that list includes non official friendly matches. In that list, there are 4 non official friendly matches, which are: vs Selection of Catalonia 2002, vs Selection of Catalonia 2004, vs Sevilla FC 2005, vs Luzern Selection 2006. That's why I'm reducing his caps from 49(4) by 4. His total would be 45(4) from this source

To differ the official and non official matches, I use this page as reference, http://paginas.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/sel/brazila.htm.

Other problems with sambafoot.com is that they also include the matches for the Olympic football team. According to FIFA this does not account into national team caps. Fortunately, for Gilberto this wasn't a problem.

However, another source that i use is http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/team/squad.html?team=BRA. As this one is managed by FIFA, I assume this is the most reliable source. This stats only includes caps and goals at the end of World Cup 2006. You just need to add them with the recent 4 matches under Dunga. But this means he has only 44(3) caps.

That's when I use other source http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/braz-recintlp.html. This page has stats up to Norway match on August 2006. THe listing shows Gilberto has 41(3) caps and we need to add 3 recent matches which resulted to 44(3) caps.

I still doesn't know what caused the difference. All the matches (except those 4) in sambafoot listings were official matches. But two other sources shows that he only has 44(3) caps that's why I'm using that info. The only explanation that I'm thinking is that sambafoot confuses Gilberto (LB from Hertha) and Gilberto Silva for one occasion.

Well that's all i know. Thanks for asking.

That's a pretty amazing reply. Good work! I think you're right about them confusing Hertha's Gilberto with Gilberto Silva. Soccerbase have done it so I wouldn't put it past Sambafoot. It's interesting to know about the non-official friendly games, too. We'll settle for 44 - that seems the most reliable stat. Thanks for all your help there! -GilbertoSilvaFan 08:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, according to http://paginas.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/sel/brazilaunof.htm, match against Kuwait wasn't official match, however, it is listed in fifa.com fixtures before the match took place. However it totally disappeared from fifa.com website after the match. Some resources also shows that it wasn't a match against Kuwait National Team, instead its Kuwait Selection Team or similar. I haven't yet know which one is correct so just let the Kuwait match still counted as official match at the moment.

Hi again. Good spot on the Kuwait match. Regarding 'one appearance over' problem; I think the confusion lies in Gilberto's alleged debut appearance against Chile. Soccerbase's http://www.soccerbase.com/results3.sd?gameid=354458 version of the game lists completely different substitutions to the Sambafoot http://www.sambafoot.com/en/selecao/2001_World_Cup_Qualifications/46_Brazil_Chile.html version. I don't know which version to trust, since both sources have proven to be unreliable in the past. What do you reckon?

Time between PR and FAC

I would recommend a minimum of one month between a PR closing and the FAC opening. I don't like rushing such things - PRs usually involve revamping of articles a lot and a month is fair time for it to "settle" a little. Qwghlm 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for your advice. I'll leave it a while before nominating it as a FAC.

My personal opinion on this is simply to do whatever you feeel comfortable with. For a high traffic article or a peer review resulting in major changes a settling period is a good idea, but the Gilberto article seems pretty stable. Mind you, as your user page states your intention to leave Wikipedia once Gilberto Silva is featured, I recommend you leave it as long as possible so that you continue doing good work ;-) Oldelpaso 12:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply mate. I think I'll wait about another two weeks then nominate it. There seems to be quite a few people chipping in with little tweaks on the article at the moment anyway; that'll help its chances in FAC. Oh - and good work on the Manchester article; especially the sentence "The official mascots of the club are the space aliens "Moonchester" and "Moonbeam".". I don't know why it makes me giggle. Thanks again, all the best! -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I saw Gilberto finally became FA. Congratulations! You deserved that! I also see you prepare the article for FAC. That's good! Just don't hurry. Give a few more days (I don't think a whole month is necessarily needed) to the reviewers (I saw you went for a peer-review) and then go for it! I'll go once again through the article and try to pick any deficiencies I may have missed. In any case, when you go for FAC, be sure that I'll be closely (and discretely!) watching your efforts and I'll help you if it's needed. For now just an advice: in order to prepare yourself for the usually tough FAC proceedure, take a look in WP:FAC to see what are the criticisms FACs face and what are the demands of the evaluators. In this way, you'll get used to FAC's logic and you'll track further deficiencies of your article. You'll also prepare yourself for possible criticisms and negative (or even absurd) comments you might face. Cheers!--Yannismarou 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yannismarou, I really appreciate your advice. It's great to know there's someone looking out for me! From now on you are my Wikipedian big brother ;-)

I've been looking around the FAC nominations (especially at the recent football articles), and I've been taking note of what kind of thing they're being called out on. I'm trying to make it so that the FAC reviewers will have nothing to criticise - but if they do, I'll happily take on board their suggestions. At the moment, I think the article passes all of the FAC criteria; but I cannot be sure, since I am now so familiar with the article, I might be missing poor sections. If you could browse over the article again, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again for all your comments, I'm sure I'll be messaging you soon! All the best, GilbertoSilvaFan 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slumgum's review

Hi, I looked closely at the Gilberto article, and tried to find faults (I knew you'd appreciate it). I just made a few minor changes to things I noticed needed tweaking.

It's very good of you to take the time to read through it! Thanks.

I think it's worthy of being a featured article already, but I did manage to think of a few things that you could add to the article:

Early career: ...the improved situation back at home - did his mother get better?

I'm not sure what "improved situation back home" means. I must have made it up. When writing it, I must have thought 'oh well if he started playing football, the condition at home must have improved'. I can get very speculative at times. I'll remove the sentence. Good spot.

This might be something to ask him, providing you do so subtly. I hope she did recover but it's not nice to mention this sort of thing if she didn't.

The way Who Moved My Cheese? affected his philosophy on how he plays football. I don't know if he still follows the philosophy, but it shows he is a thinker as much as a worker.

This is a very interesting point. I really wanted to include something about his like of 'who moved my cheese', but I really couldn't think of a place to put it. The question I still have though, is: does the message from the book really affect the way he plays football? The message I got from the book was "get up and make things happen - don't be afraid of change to make life better". Which part of his life or career would you say this philosophy applies to? Also, how would you recommend including it without making it POV/speculative? It's a very interesting point, I think I just need a bit of help with how to include it in the article properly. Good idea.

Hmm. It's difficult to say without reading the book or comparing before-book with after-book displays. I think you're right when you say that any reference to his play regarding the book might be speculative. I think only the ESPN article that mentions it can be used.

Gilberto Silva on his shirt for Brazil but just Gilberto at Arsenal, due to the other Gilberto. I don't this is really important, but if you want to add it you could.

I agree, this is quite a 'complex' issue - especially since some players are/aren't allowed to have their nicknames on their shirts. I might add a new section called 'Shirt naming' and have a little time line with the names which Gilberto has had on his shirt over the years. (Do you think that's a good idea - or should I include the information in the biography? I'm not sure how biographical it is.) I think during the 2002 world cup it was 'Silva', which carried over to when he first joined Arsenal. After that, he asked for it to be changed to 'Gilberto', then for the 2006 world cup it was 'G. Silva'. I'll need to do a bit of work to check those facts first. One question - would you say that citations would be needed for a section like that? If so, what kind of citations would be sufficient? Links to photo galleries displaying the lettering on his shirt? Written references to his shirt? I'm not even sure if it would need any of that though, so let me know.

Yeah, I'm not sure either. This sort of thing isn't difficult to know, but it is hard to reference.

Boot sponsorship deals. (Although you'd need citations to avoid it appearing like a product endorsement). I would consider this least important.

Again, a good idea. It will take a lot of time to come up with this information, but I'll give it a go. (I'm interviewing Gilberto on Monday so I might even ask him then - but shhh, don't tell anyone.) Would you suggest a new section for this, or putting the info in an existing section?

The use of interviews is frowned upon at Wikipedia, unless they're published. See WP:NOR. I know that it's not always good to meet one's heroes, so I hope you find him to be as good a lad as his biography makes him seem.

Otherwise I was very impressed. I like the depth in which you go into throughout his career. I've been impressed by your openness and attitude towards getting the article to its excellent state. Well done. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words - and more so for your help! Sorry if I ask a few too many questions in reply, it's a condition I have. I think the medical term is 'rambling'. All the best. -GilbertoSilvaFan 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:o) I think my suggestions generally bring more questions than answers anyway. I was hoping you'd have more answers than me!

I was saddened to read on your user page that you intend to leave Wikipedia after the article reaches FA status. This would be a shame as you're a good editor.

All the best to you and Gilberto. I hope you've got lots of good things prepeared for you to talk about, and I hope you don't get nervous meeting him! sʟυмɢυм • т • c 21:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Gilberto Silva Against Villa.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Gilberto Silva Against Villa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

— Indon (reply) — 02:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look again carefully in this page [1]. It is where you can see license for an image in Flickr. The license of the image is "© All rights reserved". There is no information that the image is released under creative commons. — Indon (reply) — 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point with the 'all rights reserved' notice. This is another image in which I communicated with the photographer of the image, and he released the image under CC. How do you suggest I get the image onto wikipedia without violating that copyright notice? Does he need to manually change that copyright notice? Even if he has so explicitly released the image? Please let me know. I take copyright very seriously, so the last thing I want to do is get Wikipedia into trouble. I'm just a bit of a newbie, so I need some prodding into the right direction. Thanks for your help! GilbertoSilvaFan 23:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gilberto_Silva_Streetleague.jpg

In the image summary:

Gilberto Silva in a Streetleague Promotional Photograph.

Photographer (author): Tom Miles
Photographer Website: http://www.tmphoto.co.uk
Source URL: http://www.streetleague.co.uk

Permission: OTRS ticket number 2006071810011931

Please click source URL. That's why I said it points to a blank empty page. I don't need the photographer website, but I need the source of the image, where you took it, to verify its license. — Indon (reply) — 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - ok, I can see how one might perceive a problem with this image. I actually had a long correspondence with the creator of the image (Tom Miles) who released the image under the CC license. I sent the email conversation I had with the photographer to some email creative commons email address, and they gave me a OTRS ticket number of 2006071810011931 - I assumed that would be enough. How would you suggest I prove to the world that the image has been released by the author? Does he need to upload the image himself? Or do I need him to sign a release letter? I'm not sure of the best way. One thing - both of those links which you quote both show up fine to me, though I'm not sure either link will help you verify the image's copyright.

Userpage

Thank you very much for the heads up, that was very kind of you. I've edited it a bit, if it still looks awkward, please tell me :) Poulsen 23:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hi, pal!

I'm not an adm, but I'll get one of them informed.--Yannismarou 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Gilberto Silva contribution

Ah, don't mention it — actually, you're the one to thank for massively improving the article to featured article status! Gilberto is a great player, he certainly deserves this FA and some Main Page glory :) I just saw this fact today when reading some football news and I thought it might be useful. Good luck with your fan site! Todor →Bozhinov 16:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to post on User talk:ArglebargleIV

Wow. Upon reading your extremely persuasive and well documented note, I think I'm convinced the article should stay. I'm not a football/soccer fan, so I don't personally know how important Silva is, but I can see your arguments. With your permission, I'm going to copy your note over to the talk page of the goals article, because it's as good of a argument for keeping the page as I can imagine.

I'm going to remove the WP:PROD notice as well. Keep up the good work, and thanks for being nice to me! -- ArglebargleIV 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: MCR

Ok, I'll keep trying, but thanks. Michael Norkus 14:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva goals page

as predicted the AFD folks have swooped in. not much chance of that page continuing to exist, although i find the objectors' reasoning patently *fill in the blank*. Chensiyuan 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Danish League Cup

Hi. Well... I am pretty sure, that this is a new competition, but I don't know (I am not old enough to remember how things was before ca. 2000). But I do not think this is a good idea to make a big deal out of the League Cup, as the matches is not registred as official matches. ka la ha 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Knowles

Regarding Peter Knowles: Perhaps you've double-checked this already, but the article states that in the 1968-69 promotional tour "Wolves represented Kansas City" (linking to Kansas City, Kansas); you should be mindful that Kansas City, Missouri (across the river) is larger and more prominent, and that if only the city name is given, the one in Missouri is more likely. MisfitToys 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry

Hi, I wish to tap on your experience to make the TH article a GA at least. I have performed quite a lot of edits on it on late, but it's still far from a good state. I hope you can take a look at it and go ahead and make improvements. Then at least Gilberto Silva would have an Arsenal companion in the GA/FA department! Chensiyuan 11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for giving a hand. At the moment I'm at an unpredictable level of productivity in terms of contributions to WP, but I shall try my best to keep track of the TH article. Anyway, this downtime in productivity is temporary. Thanks, Chensiyuan 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

left some replies on the TH talkpage. thanks for helping out. will try to address the issues as soon as i can (if you can, will be great too), or hopefully someone else who spots them too can do it. Chensiyuan 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're on wikibreak for a year, but the TH article has been promoted to GA. One day, it may become FA... who knows, you'd be back by then to help out! Chensiyuan 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, GilbertoSilvaFan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry

Thanks for your comments! I'll keep looking through the TH article, since I've done very little constructive edits to it (but some restoring). Severo 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio do Maracanã

Do you mean in the same paragraph or the article as a whole? There's no need to reference it multiple times in the same paragraph, but if it used used on separate occasions spread throughout the article, it should be cited each time. I've converted the reference to use the "ref name =" syntax, so it should just be a case of putting <ref name="Sambafoot"/> in the appropriate places. Hmm, looking back, talk of "jutting out bits" wasn't my finest use of words, but at least it got the point across :) Oldelpaso 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell

I saw you updated your userpage. All the best in your endeavours outside Wiki! Chensiyuan 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, good luck. Oldelpaso 09:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Silva

No problem at all. I just gave his stats in the infobox and stats box thingy an update. Mattythewhite 07:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matty. You the man. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back!

Good to see you back to witness all your hard work being rewarded! Congrats on getting Gilberto Silva to the Main Page. QmunkE 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you QmunkE, thanks for the message. It`s very exciting to finally see it on the main page! (Though some of the vandalisms are kinda scary...) Seeya! -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GS

i made only some minor changes to the 0607 section, but id keep monitoring it for some time to see what else can be done. good to see you around again! Chensiyuan 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes dude. Muito apreciado. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, guess what i'm making a raid on the Cesc Fàbregas‎ article. it's going to go through some serious revamp in the next few days. have already done some reformatting and adding of refs. i know it isn't mightily convenient for you to pop by, but as and when you can, any help you can render is going to be great. Chensiyuan 15:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update - okay i think i've done enough to make it look respectable now, what's missing at the moment is probably some stuff on his life outside football. otherwise i think it's gotten where i wanted it to. Chensiyuan 13:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well the GA passed! one day, we gonna make a featured topic outta these folks eh. Chensiyuan 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh good work! You're like a machine. I'm a little sad (just a little) that I can't be helping you out, especially since you've been so good with helping me out since I was a noob here. When I get back to England (and can regularly use a PC) I'll lend you a hand with a few articles that you choose. Again, nice going with the Fabby article, take care! -GilbertoSilvaFan 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, hope you're well. There is a basketball article which I've been working on that's been nominated for FA -- if you're free/interested, your comments will be welcome here. Thanks! Chensiyuan 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've since sent Thierry Henry for a good copyedit and I've made some changes myself to the article. Hopefully it's in better shape now. I just want to inform yofu that I've removed all citations from the lead, as they are already covered in the body of the text, so don't be alarmed if you see the changes. Substantively the content is more or less the same since we left it though. Chensiyuan 11:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good work with the Tel changes. I think it looks much better without citations in the lead. However, when I got the Gilberto article to featured status, everyone was nagging me to put citations in the lead. And in some ways it's good to have citations in the lead too, since that will stop it from becoming a "citation free zone", and being abused by people who want to dump some POV in a place where it isn't subject to citing. One day I might move all the lead citations from the Gilberto article to the main text though - it does look rather fancy.

Also, sorry I wasn't able to help out with the Tim Duncan article - I saw that you got it to featured status though, so well done! I'm scheduled to be back in England (and consequently back on Wikipedia) next year in early April, so I will return then and commence helping you (and vice versa) just like old times. [/nostalgia]

Seeya! GilbertoSilvaFan 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Just to let you know, I'm getting closer and closer to nominating Thierry Henry for FAC. Too bad he's no longer at Arsenal but since it was always a work in progress. Would let you know when it happens. Chensiyuan 23:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nomination's begun!; your comments would be most appreciated, like old times heh. Chensiyuan 08:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the nomination! Looks like the article will probably get FA status pretty soon. I have to admit I haven't recently gone through the article to see if I can see anything to improve, but now I'm sort of back on Wikipedia, I'll try to do it soon. (Of course, that doesn't mean I'll find anything - at a glance, it looks very solid. Sidenote: I noted that most of the nick picky 'suggestions for improvement' on the FAC discussion were actually gramatical mistakes which I originally made. Whoops.) -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all at the Thierry Henry FAC discussion

Everyone on Wikipedia seems to like pigeon-holling themselves into different 'sides'. Inclusionists, delitionists. Mergism, separatism. Whatever. People can think what they want. But all this "us vs. them" mentality does not help Wikipedia, as the FAC discussion proves. It just caters to our human tendancy to group together with like-minded individuals, to fight against other groups who don't believe what we believe. On Wikipedia, this behaviour may be fun to people who like to bicker, but in reality, it does not help Wikipedia at all. The Henry FAC 'discussion' seems to be a manifestation of all the 'isms' fighting against each other, just for the sake of it. Surely the reason we're all here is that we want to improve Wikipedia articles? So, really, why don't we just accept what Wikipedia IS, and try to improve it, rather than fighting for what it SHOULD be? This may involve a certain lack of disagreement - to which many users will no doubt be saddened - but Wikipedia will benefit as a result, so I see it as a justifiable sacrifice.

My next point is to draw attention to the fact that the review process in place on Wikipedia (GAC, FAC, PR etc.) naturally creates arguments. In any review process on WP, there are usually two sides: the nominating/contributing side, and the reviewing/criticising side. The nominating side loves the article, loves the subject, and has invested much of their time on it; so it's natural that they will take criticism quite badly, and feel easily insulted. This is understandable. On the other hand, the person reviewing the article looks through the article with a sort of 'negative' frame of mind, looking for errors etc. After all, this is how they HAVE to look through the article! If they weren't constantly looking for factual/gramatical/structural errors in articles, then every single article on WP would end up featured in about two months. This critical viewpoint is extremely necessary (and understandable) to the process, but it just happens to create conflict due to there being a 'nominee' involved, who takes criticism quite badly. Be aware of this recipe for arguing - and try to avoid it. Be above it. Reviewers: try to communicate your suggested improvements without being overly critical (though certainly don't neglect to point out areas of possible improvement, if they are valid). Nominees: treat criticisms as help! The reviewer has spent lots of time looking at your article, be thankful for anything they have to say about it, and within reason, try to improve whatever area they have pointed out.

All in all, we have to realise that both sides of the argument are in the review process because they want to improve the article. They might want to fight on the way - but ultimately, people are on Wikipedia because they want to improve articles. Just try to cut out the fighting part. Make sure you do this when communicating in a review process. Arguing and being stubborn against somebody's suggested improvements, or getting argumentative about someone's lack of willingness to carry them out does not help anything. Disconnect yourself from your ego when dealing with article reviews, and just act professional and courteous, no matter what your 'ideals' or current 'isms' with regards to Wikipedia as a whole. Just be amazingly nice to everybody, even if you'd actually like to punch them in the nose. It's not hard to do. Just force your fingers to type constructive/courteous thoughts, and take out your frustrations on a punch bag at home. You can't win arguments on Wikipedia: you can only damage the quality of articles by arguing.

There are two facts about the Thierry Henry article. Firstly: it is a great article, and there are also improvements which, if carried out, would improve it. Secondly: friction and resistance in reviewing this article will definitely not help improve it. To summarise.... please stop bickering, and instead try to help everyone else improve the article as much as possible, whatever ism you subscribe to!

I will now remove myself from all this talk of policy, arguing, and telling people what to do. I will, instead, return to my normal activity of improving Wikipedia articles. I urge you to do the same.

Re: Thanks

Hello again. For the helpme, I do see where it was a bit confusing. The note you saw on the template's talk page was intended to say that {{helpme}} shouldn't be used for questions about userpage or signature design - only for questions related to the encyclopedia. I've since updated it, but the template (and associated question) should really only be placed on a User talk: page such as this one.

As for Gilberto, I'd say what you have now should do fine. The page should (ideally) include:

A short background on the name itself (culture of origin, any associated meanings, etc.)
A listing of all notable people who use it as a first name, as we have.
A listing of all notable people who use it as a last name, as we have.
A listing of any other possible applications of the name, as applicable.
No red links, unless you're really sure they're going to have an article. Ideally, there should be one blue link per line.
Nobody who uses Gilberto as a middle name, unless they are usually referred to by that name.

I hope this clarifies things for you - if not, feel free to let me know. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work! I made a minor correction for capitalization, but aside from that, everything looks just fine. Adding the infobox was a great idea as well. Keep up the good work! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RvP

Yes we could try =) It's about time to clean up that article anyways, and RvP is probably the best candidate. I would be working on it slowly though, so I'd let you lead the way! Chensiyuan 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I do believe the international section was incorporated into the club section for the Thierry Henry article for a while -- but somebody re-segregated the sections, and I've not changed it since. I'm not sure who, it's all buried in a thick pile of edits, it could even have been me who reverted too much! But I don't think it was me lol. I don't think there's any particular guideline on this. I think much of the precedents are set by people who write football FAs regularly heh. So RvP could well tilt the balance. I think Denis Law is on the brink of being removed as an FA, there are no other FAs on footballers? Chensiyuan 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopmill Villa F.C.

Hi there

You, very kindly, re-vamped my "Bishopmill Villa" article. I have added more to the article, and was wondering if you could edit it again. Also- could you add one of those boxes you see on football team articles- with logo, chairman name, manager name, strip colours etc. If you could add it I would be so grateful, and I'll update it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyburr (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bishopmill Villa crest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishopmill Villa crest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaká

While we're working on RvP, I'm wondering if you are a fan of Kaká as well? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't commence on improving Kaka just yet -- like you I would settle RvP first. As for the fair use dispute, what can I say, it's typical baloney from the crusaders. Except that this time it's from a bot. I think Wikipedia should draw the lines properly. Right now, they're carving an exception for fair use, but at the rate they're going, the scope of fair use is so mightily narrow that they might as well drop the pretence and state categorically they are a 100% free encyclopedia. That way, we'd eliminate probably half of Wikipedia's images, and everything will be free in the purest way possible. What irks me is a hopelessly flawed interpretation of "fair use" (I'm legally trained although not in USA law). There are a couple of Arsenal administrators as I'm sure you're aware; perhaps you could ask them why the Bishop image does not qualify as fair use but the Arsenal one does. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bishopmill Villa crest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishopmill Villa crest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NX Zero

Hi GSF. I noticed your message on User:VirtualSteve's talk page. You can find a copy of the article in your userspace here. I suggest working on the article in your userspace until it has improved enough to relist in article space. Please let me or VS know when you are ready to do so. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 11:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did mean to get back to you. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 09:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GilbertoSilvaFan, I saw this article randomnly and I thought I'd make a suggestion: Give WP:BAND a quick look through and see if you can pick up anything from there :-) - Hope this helps! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worded it slightly, but yes, article is fine as is. Could be a bit longer to explain their genre and other things. But at the moment it scrapes by on notability :-) - Have a nice day! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I stumbled ;-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I replied to you on my talk page. Thanks for your post. ~EdGl 14:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have several bands on my watchlist, so I know all the "genre-warring" that goes on. You can either become a music genre "expert" and police the article, or you can just leave the feud to others. I do a little of both, depending on how seriously wrong the edit in question is :) ~EdGl 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]